Sitting of 3 August 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.

    BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
    CHRISTCHURCH AND BOURENMOUTH TRAMWAYS BILL.
    COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
    DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
    HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, and agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (NO. 1) BILL.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.

    METROPOLIS GAS (PREPAYMENT METER) BILL (CHANGED FROM "GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS, AND SOUTH METRPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL").
    METRPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
    NEWRY, KEADY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    PLYMOUTH, STONEHOUSE, AND DEVONPORT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
    SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
    SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
    SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
    TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
    TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, and agreed to.

FRASER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That, in the case of the Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Ordered, That, in the case of the Sunderland Corporation Bill [Lords],

621
Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time. —(Mr. Caldwell.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—

  Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill,

  Clontarf Urban District Council Bill,

  London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment) Bill, without amendment.

  Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway Bill, with Amendments.

  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],

  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords],

  Caledonian Railway Bill [Lords],

  Margate Corporation Bill [Lords],

  Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [Lords],

  Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway Bill [Lords],

  Bournemouth Corporation Bill [Lords],

  Sunderland Corporation Bill [Lords],

  Workington Railways and Docks Bill [Lords], without amendment.

PETITIONS.
  IMBECILES (TRAINING INSTITUTIONS) BILL.
  Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
  Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF WOODLANS.
  Petition from Newcastle-in-Emlyn, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Rochdale, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Croydon; and Lincoln (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SOLDIERS AND SATLORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petition from Lichfield, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Lincoln, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOL BOARDS (WAGES).
  Return [presented 2nd August] to be printed. No. 334.]
  COUNTY COUNCIL SCHOLARSHIPS.
  Return [presented 2nd August] to be printed. [No. 335.]
  ARMY (MILITIA CANDIDATES).
  Copy presented, of Regulations for the Competitive Examination of Militia Candidates for Commissions in the Army in September next [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CUSTOMS.
  Copy presented, of Forty-fourth Report of the Commissioners of Customs for the year ended 31st March, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd April; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 336.]
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th March; Mr. Joseph A. Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 337.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1900, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold Civil Employment of profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 338.]
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES (1898–9).
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of the United Kingdom from the 1st July, 1898, to 30th June, 1899; and of the Returns of Shipping Casualties to British Vessels elsewhere than on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of the United Kingdom, and to Foreign Vessels on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of British Possessions Abroad, etc., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ending 31st March, 1900, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers and Sub-Inspectors of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the six months ending 30th June, 1900, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers and Sub-Inspectors of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS (GENERAL REPORT).
  Copy presented, of General Report to the Board of Trade upon the Accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF TRADE (STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent on the Strikes and Lock-outs of 1899, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF TRADE (STANDARD TIME RATES OF WAGES).
  Copy presented, of Report on Standard Time Rates of Wages in the United Kingdom in 1900, with Comparative Tables [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE AND SHIPPING OF SOUTH-EAST ASIA.
  Copy presented, of Return of Trade, Shipping, Railways, and Economic Condition generally of French Indo-China, Siam, Straits Settlements and Malay Federated States, and the British and Dutch Possessions in the East Indian Archipelago: a Series of Articles containing information collated from various sources, including the Board of Trade Journal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Thirty-ninth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries (England and Wales), for 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Fourteenth Annual Report of the Inspectors, for 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 339.]

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings.

  625
  under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 340.]

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on their Proceedings and Business under the Weights and Measures Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 341.]
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-second Annual Report of the Registrar General, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Return showing under County Boroughs and Administrative Counties for each Public Elementary School inspected in England and Wales; the name and denomination of School; the number of Scholars for whom accommodation was provided; the average number of Scholars in attendance; the Annual Grant paid; and particulars of School Income and Expenditure; for the year ended 31st August, 1899 (with Summaries) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 31st July, 1900, modifying Article 101 (g) of the Day School Code, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st March, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2497 and 2498 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 342.]
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account presented, of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the payments thereof and the interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1898–9 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1900–1901).
  Copy ordered, "of Tables relating to the Revenue and Expenditure for 1900–1901, according to the latest Estimates." —(Mr Hanbury.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 333.]

  TEA AND COFFEE.
  Copy of Statement ordered, "showing the Imports of Tea and Coffee into the principal Countries of Europe and into the United States, together with Statistical Tables relating thereto for recent years, as far as the particulars can be stated." —(Mr. Ritchie.)

  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
  Address for "Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered into each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1899, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding, £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, and those by agreement over £50.
  "And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 357, of Session of 1899)." —(Mr. Jesse Callings.)

QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— ADVANCE ON PEKING.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House who is to command the allied forces in their march upon Peking, and give any information regarding the advance. May I also ask, as a supplementary question,

  627
  whether there is any truth in the statement that the advance of the allies on Peking has been delayed by the serious un preparedness of the British contingent.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): As I told my hon. friend yesterday, we have no further information on the points raised in his original question. With regard to the supplementary question of which he gave me private notice, we certainly have no information of the advance of the allies being delayed by the dilatory preparations of the British contingent. On the contrary, our last information from General Gaselee, which I gave the House, was that he hoped shortly to advance, and anticipated the co-operation of the allies.

  PROPOSED LOAN TO CHANG CHIH-TUNG.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON (York, W.R.,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the assistance of Her Majesty's Government has been sought to enable Chang Chih-tung, the Wuchang Viceroy, to obtain a loan of 500,000 taels required for the military and other expenses of the Vice-royalty; and, if so, whether, in view of the protection afforded to British subjects by the troops of Chang Chih-tung, Her Majesty's Government will give the guarantee asked for.
  MR. BRODRICK: We are not in possession of facts as to the purpose for which this loan is required and to which it may be applied, but we are making further inquiry. I am not in a position to make any statement.

  NAVY—DRAFTS OF UNTRAINKD MEN FOR SERVICE IN CHINA.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is usual for a sailor in the Royal Navy, on leaving the training ship as a boy for a man-of-war, to pass through the several gradations of ordinary seaman, trained man, able seaman, and subsequently to undergo a course of gunnery training in the school for that purpose; whether untrained men not above the rank of ordinary seamen have been drafted from the Channel Fleet for service in China; and, if so, how many; and will these untrained men be placed
  628
  on active service on shore without any previous qualification for taking the field, or will any steps be taken that they should be fully trained and instructed in musketry before their employment in active service.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALLY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I think the hon. Member has made a confusion between gunnery and musketry. All seamen entered as boys have naturally to pass through certain grades in the course of their service and receive the training prescribed for such grades. The course of the question must not be confused with instruction in musketry, in which all first-class boys are trained. No boys or men untrained in musketry would be drafted to ships on stations abroad. The men and boys sent to the China station have been drafted in the ordinary way.

  INDIAN TROOPS FOR CHINA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what will be the composition of the force of the third Indian Brigade now placed under orders for China, and will it consist of British or native troops; will the expenses of this force also be borne by the Imperial Exchequer; and what steps will be forthwith taken to supply this further depletion of the defensive forces of India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The composition of the third Indian Brigade now under orders for China will be four native infantry regiments. The expenses of this force will be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. As the Reserve of the native Army was below the fixed establishment, I have authorised a temporary addition to it of 4,000 native infantry.

  AUXILIARY FORCES—SERVICE IN CHINA AND SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether ho can state approximately the number of men who have joined the Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteer forces since the-invitation that was made to members of those forces to volunteer for service in

  629
  South Africa; whether, in view of the part played by the Militia and Volunteers on that occasion, and the excellence of their record in South Africa, the commanding officers of the various battalions will be ordered to parade their men to invite volunteers for service in rescuing the Legations in China; and whether the Yeomanry, Militiamen, and Volunteers now serving in South Africa are liable, under the terms of their engagement, to be sent to China for such service.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The number of men who have joined the Militia since 1st December last is about 28,000; with regard to the Yeomanry and Volunteers, although I know that largo numbers have joined, I cannot give figures, because the War Office only receives complete Returns once a year. My noble friend, however, proposes to ask for more frequent Returns. There is no present intention of sending members of these forces to China; certainly no attempt will be made to send any there under the terms of their enlistment for South Africa.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Are the men in South Africa liable to be sent there?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS INQUIRY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury under what headings will the expenses of the Royal Commission on South African Military Hospitals be included in the Estimates; and will details of the main items of the expenses connected with this Royal Commission under definite headings be furnished.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The expenses of the Royal Commission will be charged on the Vote for temporary Commissions. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the affirmative.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will an item for whitewash be included?

  DOCUMENTS FOUND AT BLOEMFONTEIN AND PRETORIA SAID TO IMPLICATE M.P.'S.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether documents have been discovered during the search of the Government Offices at Pretoria, affecting certain Members of the House of Commons and other politicians who have taken a prominent part in the agitation in this country in favour of the Boers; whether there is any information which, he can give to the House on the subject without detriment to the public interest;: if such documents have been, found, whether they will be laid before Parliament; and whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any correspondence between British Members of Parliament and Transvaal authorities; and, if so, whether it can be laid upon the Table.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper on the same subject:—
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any letters have been found at Pretoria from Members of this House of a compromising character; and if so, whether he has any information, to give to the House upon this subject.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the correspondence discovered at Pretoria, among other papers of the Transvaal Government, which is alleged to be treasonable, and to involve Members of this House and other British subjects, will be laid upon the Table forthwith.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Perhaps I may be allowed at the same time to answer all the questions on this subject. When the Boer Governments fled from Bloemfontein and Pretoria, they left behind them in the archives a mass of private correspondence. This correspondence has been under examination by the British authorities on the spot, and by the last two mails I have received instalments of it, but I am informed that there is more to come. The portion that I have seen is all previous to the outbreak of the war, and consists chiefly of letters passing

  631
  between British subjects at the Cape and persons in the two Republics, but it includes copies of two letters purporting to have been written by an English M.P. Her Majesty's Government have also in their possession copies of letters and an extract of a letter purporting to have been written by two other M. P.'s. Two of them were dated just before the outbreak of war; the other is a request, couched in a form which is certainly open to criticism, for information respecting the administration of martial law. The most interesting feature of the South African correspondence is the general admission of substantial grievances, and of the necessity for reform. There are, however, some suggestions that President Kruger might make temporary concessions and wait for a re-action in this country. I observe that the hon. Member for Mcrthyr Tydvil speaks of the correspondence as treasonable. I am, of course, quite unable to give a legal opinion; but so far as my personal opinion is concerned, the letters ascribed to British subjects in this country are not treasonable, but they are not proper letters to be written by British subjects when Her Majesty's Government were engaged in difficult and important negotiations. I propose to send them in the first instance to the alleged writers, and to ask if they desire to offer any explanation. Her Majesty's Government will wait their reply before deciding on the question of publication.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, among these archives, copies of the Rhodes-Chamberlain (Hawksloy) correspondence were found?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; there is no such correspondence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, oh !
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no such correspondence—there never has been.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why don't you produce it?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is nothing to produce.

  ORANGE RIVER COLONY—COMPENSATION TO ENGLISH SETTLERS.
  MR. HALSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
  632
  for the Colonies whether it will be possible, in the final settlement in South Africa, to give favourable consideration to the case of those Englishmen, settled in the Orange River Colony, who have suffered imprisonment and the confiscation of the whole of their stock and goods, because they refused to take up arms against their fellow-countrymen in the war.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The question raises a very difficult point, on which we have to be particularly careful, in order not to create precedents which might hereafter be extremely inconvenient. Above all, we have to preserve a distinction between the cases of those who suffered by war in Her Majesty's possessions and those who suffered when resident in a foreign country to which they had voluntarily gone. At the same time, I may say personally that I have the greatest sympathy with those in both the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal who have suffered on account of their loyalty. The only answer I can give to the question is that the matter is under consideration, but no statement can at present be made as to the manner in which such cases will be dealt with or whether any compensation can be obtained.

  ENTERIC FEVER CASES AT BLOEM-FONTEIN AND KROONSTADT.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now give the number of admissions for and the number of deaths from enteric fever at Bloemfontein for the weeks ending 8th, 15th, and 22nd Juno; and also if he can give the number of admissions for enteric fever and the number of deaths from that disease at Kroonstadt for the weeks ending 25th May, and 1st, 8th, and 15th June.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The figures are as follow:—

  Bloemfontein.

  Week ending

  Admissions.

  Deaths.

  8th June

  …

  487

  98

  15th June

  …

  213

  64

  22nd June

  …

  221

  52

  Kroonstadt.

  25th May

  …

  6

  —

  1st June

  …

  83

  12

  8th June

  18

  …

  18

  15th June

  66

  …

  11

  TREATMENT OF INVALIDED CANADIANS AT SHORNCLIEEE CAMP.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the treatment of certain members of the Canadian contingent, who had been invalided home, at Shorneliffe Camp from 1st to 8th June, during which time they were without any proper accommodation and rations; and will he state who was responsible for such treatment.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I presume the hon. Member is referring to certain allegations which appeared in the newspapers at a time corresponding to the dates he gives. A telegram of inquiry was sent to Shorncliffe on the subject, and the following answers were received from the officer commanding the Provisional Battalion, to which the Canadians are attached:—
  (1) By telegraph, on 12th June—
  "No grounds for any complaints; Canadians here are very angry at reports in papers, and came to me yesterday and asked for permission to write to contradict them, which, of course, by the regulations, I could not give.—KELLY."
  (2) By letter, 13th June—
  "The Brigade-Major, Shorncliffe.
  "With reference to the inquiries of the Adjutant-General as to the housing, feeding, and granting of furloughs to noncommissioned officers and men of the Royal Canadian Regiment and to certain paragraphs in newspapers stating that they were not being well treated exactly the same as other soldiers in the battalion.
  "All who wish to go on furlough have had one granted them. In one ease the man returned in two or three days, having spent his money, and will consequently be in debt for the next two months. The non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Canadian Regiment were much annoyed at the paragraphs in certain papers which stated they were not well treated: and the senior asked to see me, and said they were quite satisfied and asked for permission to write to the newspapers to contradict the reports about them.
  (Signed) "C. H. KELLY, Colonel
  Commanding Provisional Battalion."
  "Shorncliffe, 13th June, 1900."
  The General Officer Commanding, Shorncliffe, adds:—
  "I fully bear out the statements and opinions of Colonel Kelly. I not so very long ago personally saw and conversed with some of the men and they gave me the impression of men who were quite contented with their position and surroundings.
  (Signed) "H. HALLAM PARR, Major-
  General, Commanding
  South Eastern District.
  "Shorncliffe, 13th June, 1900."
  SIR CAMERON GULL: May I ask the Under Secretary whether ho has received a statement sent to him, not founded on any newspaper report, but written by one of the men themselves, detailing exactly the ill-treatment they have experienced. If he has not received it will he let me send him a copy of it?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think the testimony of one man would outweigh the general testimony of the others. I did not give one paragraph of Colonel Kelly's letter, because it reflected on the newspaper press of this country, but in that paragraph Colonel Kelly said that the Canadians had told him that there was one grumbler amongst them to whom they attributed all the paragraphs.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: Is the hon.Gentleman aware it was stated in that letter that——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member cannot enter into details.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I will put a further question on the subject.

  PURCHASES OF WARLIKE STORES ABROAD.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any and what kind of warlike stores were purchased abroad for the purposes of the campaign in South Africa; and what is the total estimated sum paid or to be paid for such purchases up to 31st December, 1899.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Certain purchases of warlike stores have been made abroad, but these bear a very small proportion to the purchases made at home. For example., we have purchased—

  At Home.

  India.

  Abroad.

  (a) Harness and saddlery, 25,000 sets and 62,000 sets (mule)

  —

  7,000 sets.

  (b) Drab serge, 200,000 (more now).

  —

  50,000

  (c) Boots, 240,000

  160,000

  —

  It would be against the public interest to publish an exhaustive statement of such purchases at the present moment, and I must ask the hon. Member not to press his question.
  MR. EDMUND EOBERTSON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph on Monday?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: If hon. Members can defer their questions till Tuesday, that will enable the officials at the War Office to have the Bank Holiday.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is it a fact that largo contracts have been concluded with Hungarian firms for the supply of foreign flour, and will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to give all such orders possible to the English flour-milling trade?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Not forgetting Sheffield.

  CASUALTY STATISTICS.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that in the official table of casualties since the beginning of the war in South Africa up to and including 28th July, the total losses are reported as 36,559 officers and men, and that this number includes 1,044 officers and 24,058 men, a total of 25,102, sent home as invalids, it can be stated in these Returns in future what number of officers and men sent home as invalids have died or have recovered, or are still invalids, in order to give an accurate return of the actual losses due to the war.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. This information will in future, so far as possible, be given in the weekly statement of casualties. It is hoped that the figures can be prepared in time for inclusion in next week's table.

  LADYSMITH PIGEON POST.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the pigeon post so useful in the siege of Ladysmith was organised by the War Office or by private enterprise; whether his attention has been called to a letter offering to organise such a service, received from Mr. A. Hirst by the War Office, but which was not answered, and whether the service was afterwards accepted by Sir George White without orders from the War Office; and whether there is any intention on the part of the War Office to organise a service of carrier
  636
  pigeon communication from the north of Europe towards the British coast.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The pigeon post established at Ladysmith was organised, under the authority of the General Officer commanding, by Messrs. Hirst and Wright, to both of whom the success which attended the working of the system was largely due. The pigeon post was made use of and supervised by the Intelligence Department during the siege. No letter from Mr. Hirst offering to organise a carrier pigeon system can be traced in the War Office. A training establishment for homing pigeons is about to be established at Aldershot.

  FIELD BATTERIES AT ALDERSHOT.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the establishment of the new field batteries now stationed at Aldershot, and what is their actual strength in horses and guns.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. and gallant Member probably refers to the batteries whoso formation was begun on the 28th July. I have no detailed information of their strength, but I understand that they have about one-third of their establishment.
  MAJOR RASCH: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the guns are ready?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: You can hardly expect that, when the formation of the batteries was only begun four or five days ago.

  COLOUR-SERGEANTS' PENSIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether colour sergeants, on the completion of twenty-one years service, become entitled to a pension of 2s. 6d. a day for life; whether it is in the power of a commanding officer to refuse to recommend for discharge men on the completion of the term of twenty-one years, and to compel them after they have earned pensions to serve for the small sum which constitutes the difference between the pay and the pension; and on what grounds can a man be compelled to prolong his service in the Army on the completion of the term during which he engaged to

  637
  serve and after he has earned his retiring pension.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: In reply to the first paragraph the man is, subject to certain conditions as to the quality of the service, entitled to the pension. During war or when the Reserves are called oat a soldier may he detained with the colours for a period not exceeding twelve months beyond the date of expiration of his term of service.

  ACCOMMODATION FOR MILITIA ON SALISBURY PLAIN.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the huts at Bulford Camp have been ordered to be ready by 1st November to hold the Militia at present under canvas there, and whether it is intended to keep them under canvas until then, bearing in mind that the weather is severe on Salisbury Plain; and whether, seeing that these huts cannot possibly be finished by the contractor, although he is receiving the assistance of the Engineer Militia, by 1st November, it is intended to keep the Militia under canvas during the winter until they are ready; and if not, whore it is proposed to accommodate them; and, as more huts are still to be built by the winter, can he state where it is proposed to accommodate the troops until they are ready, also whether the huts in course of erection at Bulford Camp will be solidly built on proper foundations, and what provision will be made for hospital accommodation at Bulford Camp.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The huts in course of erection at Bulford are for the field artillery, and will, it is hoped, be completed by 30th September. The question of huts for the Militia is a complicated one, into which I am not prepared to go in any detail. But I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the intention of the Government to keep the Militia in tents after the camping season is over, nor to house them in insufficient or insanitary buildings.
  MR, ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): Is it within the knowledge of the War Office that there is any ground for the allegation that these huts cannot possibly be finished by the contractor by 1st November?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The first half of the huts will be completed long before, but I cannot undertake to say whether the second half will be. As I have said, the question is a complicated one and depends on the movements of the Regular forces as well as of the Militia, but the Government have taken such steps as will prevent any inconvenience arising from overlapping.

  SHEFFIELD CITY POLICE AND RIFLE PRACTICE.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet heard whether the War Office will accede to the request of the City Council of Sheffield, on the recommendation of the Watch Committee, that rifles be lent and practice ammunition be issued for the use of the City Police Force, and their preparation to augment the national forces in the event of invasion.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I understand that the War Office are not prepared to grant special facilities to members of police forces over and above those afforded to members of rifle clubs affiliated to the National Rifle Association under the scheme which has recently come into operation. There does not appear to be anything to prevent members of police forces availing themselves of this scheme.

  AMMUNITION HOISTS ON SHIPS OF WAR.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ammunition hoists on board nearly all the ships in the Navy are hand hoists, while those of foreign navies have in addition electrical hoists; if so, can ho state the reason for our ships not being provided with electrical hoists.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The ammunition hoists in the British Navy are generally hydraulic for heavy guns, and hand for medium and light guns, electrical hoists being fitted only in a few ships Foreign navies have adopted electrical hoists in many cases. The advantages and disadvantages of the two systems, and the conditions under which they should each

  639
  be used, depend on a variety of circumstances which are too numerous to be dealt with in reply to a question; but as a general principle it is considered that it is not wise to introduce complicated machinery, involving periodical repairs and additional expenditure of fuel, when the work can be done equally well by hand.

  STEAM COAL CONTRACTS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the irst Lord of the Admiralty if he is ware that inconvenience is caused to those tendering by invitation to the Admiralty for the supply of steam coal by the delay in notifying them whether their tenders have been accepted or otherwise; and if he can in future arrange to obviate the delay.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The inconvenience which may be caused to firms tendering by delay is fully recognised, but the question of the allocation of the orders requires careful consideration. Tenders are always dealt with as speedily as possible.

  NEW PATTERN 12-IN. GUNS—DELAYED DELIVERY.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain the circumstances under which, as stated in the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Navy, out of a batch of six new pattern 12-inch guns, on which considerable sums have been paid as instalments, only one, and that eight months in arrear and defective, had been accepted.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The whole question referred to by the right hon. Baronet is still under consideration, and until it is decided what action is to be taken, it is not desirable to make any further statement or explanation. I may add that, so far, no inconvenience to the service has been caused by the delay in question.

  ASHANTI—NATIVE RISING—CAUSES.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has ascertained the cause of the rising of the natives of Ashanti.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; and it will not be possible to form a definite opinion as to the causes of the rising until further information can be obtained when, order has been restored.

  COCOA BUTTER IMPORT DUTIES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount collected from the duty on the importation, of cocoa butter since its imposition to 31st July, 1900, and the amount it produced between 1st August, 1899, and 31st July, 1900.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The amount of revenue collected from the duty on the importation of cocoa butter from the 1st August, 1899, to 31st July, 1900, was £3,231, and for the whole period since the imposition of the duty (7th August, 1896, to 31st July, 1900), was £14,033.

  EXPORTS OF BRITISH COAL.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state to what countries the increased export of British coal has mainly gone, and, in particular, what governments or countries have increased their purchases of coal suitable for naval use; and if such export has increased the cost of coal for the Royal Navy or reduced its supply.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The increase in the exports of coal, coke, and fuel from the United Kingdom during the first six months of this year over the exports in the first six months of 1899 was 1,073,000 tons. The increase, however, was not general among the various countries to which the coal, etc., was sent, there having been decreases in the exports to some countries amounting in the aggregate to 970,000 tons, and increases to others to the extent of 2,043,000 tons. The principal increases were to Germany, 405,000 tons; Holland, 451,000 tons; and France, 810,000 tons. I am informed that the total exports of coal from Wales in the six months January to June, 1900, show a decrease of more than 400,000 tons compared with the same period of 1899. The increase in the

  641
  cost of fuel for the Royal Navy, therefore, cannot be attributed to increased export of the kind required.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is practicable to determine at the time of the shipment the purposes for which coal exported abroad is to lie used; and if he can state approximately the proportion of coal exported foreign which is sent to British possessions, to British subjects resident abroad, and to coal depots in foreign countries for the supply of British-owned steamers. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade if ho can state the decreases in the exports foreign of coal from Cardiff and Newport in June and for the first six months of this year respectively, as compared with the corresponding periods of 1899. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that no steam navigation or other coal was shipped from Cardiff to Calais during the first six months of this year, and that no coal of any kind was cleared from any South Wales port to Calais during that period with the exception of one cargo of 740 tons from Newport in June last; and if he will cause inquiries to be made as to shipments of this kind.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am unable to say for what purposes coal exported to foreign countries is to be used, nor what proportion is to be utilised by British subjects. I will obtain and communicate to the hon. Gentleman information as to the amount of coal exported to British possessions, and as to the decrease in exports from Cardiff and Newport in the first six months of this year as compared with those of the corresponding period of 1899. The Customs records do not enable mo to say what quantities of coal are exported to particular foreign ports.

  SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience resulting from the absence of arrangements for a gold assay at the Sheffield Assay Office; and whether ho will promote or assist whatever legislative or other measure may be required for the purpose of making it unnecessary for gold articles manufactured at Sheffield to be sent to
  642
  other towns in order that they may be assayed and hall-marked.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; my attention had not been called to this matter. Silver articles may be assayed in Sheffield, and I should have thought the manufacture of articles made of gold was comparatively very limited in that city. I cannot, of course, promise any legislation, but I can assure my right hon. friend that I shall be happy to give my best consideration to any evidence produced to prove that Sheffield is placed at a disadvantage in this respect.

  VOLUNTARY SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR CHURCH SCHOOLS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state the totals of the voluntary subscriptions to the Church schools for the years 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900 respectively.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GOKST,): The figures for the statistical years ending 31st August were:—1897, £630,169; 1898, £583,613; 1899, £600,286. The returns for 1900 are not yet complete.

  VACCINATED CALVES.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many calves are kept by the Department as reservoirs of lymph for vaccination purposes; how many of the animals so used are sold annually as food for the people; and where the sales take place.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The average number of calves now vaccinated weekly at Lamb's Conduit Street is seventeen. All the calves from which lymph has been collected are within the next few days slaughtered under veterinary supervision, and the calves passed on veterinary authority as sound are sold in the Central Meat Market, Smithfield.

  VACCINATION OFFICERS AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD— "BRAMBLE v. LOWE."
  MR. CHANNING: I bog to ask the President of the

  643
  Local Government Board whether, seeing that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, based on the case of Bramble v. Lowe, by which he has justified the action of the Board in treating vaccination officers as servants of the Board and not as subject to the directions of the guardians, referred only to prosecutions under Section 31 of the Act of 1867, the opinion of the Law Officers has been taken on the extension of this practice of ousting the power of the guardians to direct the proceedings of their vaccination officer to prosecutions under Section 29 of the Act of 1867; and whether he will give the opinions of the Law Officers as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that the Local Government Board have treated the vaccination officers as their servants. As the Board explained in their circular of the 21st October, 1898, the power and the duty of taking proceedings are vested in the vaccination officer under the Vaccination Acts passed prior to the Vaccination Act, 1898, without any Order of the Board or direction from the guardians. The opinions which the Law Officers have given to this effect referred to prosecutions both under Section 29 and Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867; but the hon. Member must be aware that it would be entirely opposed to the established practice to publish these opinions.

  VACCINATION FEES AT WIGAN.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the minimum fees fixed by the Vaccination Order, 1898, press heavily on the local ratepayers at Wigan and other places; and that there was paid in the town of Wigan for the year ending Lady Day. 1898, £516 9s. 5d.; for the year 1899, £433 5s.; for the year 1900, £1,541 7s. 7d.; and whether, in view of these charges, he will consider the whole matter with a view of placing them on a more reasonable basis.
  MR. CHAPLIN: We have not got the figures for 1900 which show the increase in expenditure at Wigan, but the establishment of a system of domiciliary vaccination has necessarily added to the cost of vaccination, as the duties of the officers have in consequence been very consider-
  644
  ably increased. Moreover, the amount of the fees to some extent depends on the number of successful vaccinations, and I am glad to say that this number has been largely augmented since the Vaccination Act, 1898, came into operation. In the Wigan Union there was an increase of about 60 per cent, in the number of successful vaccinations in 1899 as compared with 1898. I have, however, received other representations on this matter, and I am, as I always have been, willing, to consider whether an alteration should, be made in the minimum fees prescribed by the Vaccination Order; but I think we should have some further experience before determining whether this course ought to be adopted.

  POPLAR GUARDIANS—TREATMENT OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Poplar Board of Guardians propose to spend about £150,000 in building a pauper children's village at Hutton, and that the Poor Law Schools Committee recommend in their Report that pauper children should not be kept as a class apart and aggregated in large numbers, and whether the proposed departure from the recommendation of the Poor Law Schools Committee has been sanctioned; and, if not, what steps he intends to take to induce the Poplar Board of Guardians to adopt the alternative methods of dealing with the children recommended by the Poor Law Schools Committee.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Poplar Guardians propose to provide new accommodation at Hutton to replace the "barrack" schools at Forest Gate. Plans and estimates have not yet been submitted to the Local Government Board, and I am not in a position to state definitely what the new buildings will consist of or what the cost will be. I understand, however, that the girls and the boys under ten will be provided for in cottage homes, and the older boys in blocks. The Local Government Board have expressed their willingness to assent to the purchase of the site, and the details of the scheme will be carefully considered when the plans are submitted.

  CARMARTHEN PRISON MATRON'S PENSION.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.): I beg to ask the President of

  645
  the Local Government Board whether the question in dispute between the Local Government Board and the Treasury, in reference to the pension of Miss Bryant, the late matron of Her Majesty's prison, Carmarthen, has yet been settled; and, if so, whether he will state the result; and whether he is aware of the fact that, pending the settlement of the question, Miss Bryant is inadequately provided for.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The decision has not yet been given in the case referred to in the question, but I hope that this will be done in the course of the next few days.

  RATING OF CEMETERIES.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the increasing losses imposed upon local authorities having within their districts cemeteries belonging to other local authorities owing to the exemption of such cemeteries from re-assessment; and whether, in the next session of Parliament, he will propose that Section 15 of the Burial Act of 1855, which provides for such exemption from reassessment, should be repealed.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have no doubt that the result of the enactment referred to in the question is that lands used as burial grounds are in certain cases assessed at a lower rate than would otherwise be the case, and that whore this is so some loss occurs to local authorities. I cannot give any undertaking about legislation next session.

  SEWAGE POLLUTION OF THE THAMES.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the year 1899 thirty-eight sewage overflows discharged sewage into the Thames on its northern side within the London area; and, seeing that such discharges of sewage are liable to take place whenever the rainfall exceeds one-tenth of an inch, and that the existing obligations of law compel local authorities to admit the combined drainage of sewage and water to their sewers, whether, in the next session of Parliament, it is his intention to introduce a Bill to enable the local authorities
  646
  to keep separate, if they desire to do so, the sewage and the water drainage of their districts.
  MR. CHAPLIN: No, Sir, my attention has not been called to the facts referred to, and I have no information to show how far they are as suggested in the first paragraph of the question. With regard to the second paragraph, local authorities have the power to provide, and they have in some instances already provided, separate systems for sewage and water drainage. The further legislation suggested on the subject would, it appears, raise questions of considerable importance which would involve heavy expense. As I stated in reply to the last question, I am not in a position to give any pledge with regard to legislation next session.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a recurrence of pollution of the River Thames, near the sewage pumping stations at Halfway Reach and Barking Reach; and whether he will cause the necessary steps to be taken to obtain an abatement of the nuisance as a precaution against danger to health of those engaged upon the river.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have made inquiry on this subject, and I am informed that it is the recent hot weather which is mainly responsible for the nuisance complained of in the part of the river referred to in the question. I learn from the London County Council that they are fully intent on further improving the condition of the river, and that they have undertaken several large works with that object. The Local Government Board have no power to take or to cause any steps to be taken in the matter.

  RELIGIOUS MINISTRATIONS IN WORKHOUSES.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in the Thorne Union workhouse the services are taken alternately by the vicar of Thorne and by some Nonconformist ministers; whether the majority of these inmates of this workhouse are entered as members of the Church, of England; whether in the Beverley Union workhouse there are any Church of England services on Sundays:

  647
  whether in both these cases the guardians have declined to appoint chaplains, as required by the regulations of the Local Government Board; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this state of things.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I find on inquiry that the answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. There has been no paid chaplain at the Thorne workhouse since 1879, or at the Beverley workhouse since 1881, and hitherto we have received no complaint on the subject. In reply to the last paragraph, I have directed a communication to be addressed in the first instance to the guardians in each case, pointing out the duty which rests upon them as regards services on Sundays, and asking for their explanations as to why that duty has not been performed.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: What will the right hon. Gentleman do if the explanation of the board of guardians is not satisfactory?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am not prepared to answer that.

  OVERCROWDING ON RAILWAYS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether railway companies who have issued tickets to passengers for particular trains are bound to provide seats for those passengers in the respective classes of carriages for which they have paid; and what remedy there is against railway companies for the overcrowding of carriages.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative, subject to this qualification, that the contract of carriage may be made conditional upon there being room in the train. Most railway companies have a bye-law with this object as to tickets issued at intermediate stations Railway companies are responsible for any overcrowding of carriages due to default on their part or on the part of their officials. It was said by Lord Blackburn in the House of Lords in the case of the Metropolitan Railways Company v. Jackson (reported in the L.R. for 1878, 3 App. Cas. p. 193) that a pas-
  648
  senger is entitled to be carried in a carriage with reasonable accommodation, and that the company ought to take reasonable steps to prevent passengers getting into carriages already full. The remedy is by action, in which, as it was pointed out in the case already referred to, the prosecutor may recover for any damage sustained by him in consequence of overcrowding duo to default on the part of the company or their servants.

  NATIONAL GALLERY—PROTECTION AGAINST FIRE.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what progress has been made in acquiring property needed for the isolation of the National Gallery.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The purchase of property, with a view to creating a clear space not less than 40ft. wide, to the west of the National Gallery, has been agreed to, in principle, by the Government and the vendors; and negotiations are now in progress as to the settlement of the price to be paid. The purchase should be shortly completed.

  INSPECTOR OF ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he has yet appointed an Inspector of Ancient Monuments in succession to the late General Pitt-Rivers.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: It has been thought advisable not to make any appointment immediately, so that some indication may first be gathered of the probable effect of this year's legislation for the extension of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act. The appointment is vested by statute in the Treasury.

  SWINE FEVER—REMOVAL REGULATIONS.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the present Swine Fever (Movement) Orders, whereby a licence is required to be obtained for the transmission of fat pigs for slaughter, are causing not only inconvenience but also loss to farmers in Somerset; and whether he will withdraw these Orders.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): My right hon. friend asks me to say that he is well aware of and much regrets the inconvenience and even loss which is occasioned by the Order to which the hon. Member refers; but inasmuch as no fewer than thirty-two outbreaks of swine fever occurred in the infected area during June, it became urgently necessary to take steps to prevent the conveyance of infection to other districts. The position, which has somewhat improved since the Order was made, will lie constantly kept in view, and the Order revoked at the earliest possible moment consistently with safety.

  LONDON TELEGRAPHISTS—RISK ALLOWANCES.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether counter clerks and telegraphists in the East Central and Metropolitan District Offices received additional risk allowance whilst performing overtime, both before and after the Tweedmouth Committee; and whether the Secretary to the Post Office has now withdrawn this right; and, if so, whether the Postmaster General will direct that all officers entitled to receive risk allowance shall receive this allowance whilst in the performance of overtime, in accordance with the past practice of the Department.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): It appears that a misunderstanding has arisen with regard to the payment of risk allowances at certain district offices, and arrangements are now being made to adjust such cases as are found to come within the reservation made by the Tweedmouth Committee.

  LUGGAGE CHARGES ON SCOTCH RAILWAYS.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that passengers between London and Scotland whoso luggage is paid for and booked through to stations in Scotland are surcharged on reaching Scotland according to the higher scale for excess luggage for that portion of the journey that is performed on the Scottish lines; and whether he will urge on the Scottish railway companies the necessity for the removal of this inconvenience.
  MR. RITCHIE: The point raised by the hon. Member shall be brought to the attention of the Scottish companies. It is most desirable that there should be uniformity of practice among all the companies with regard to this matter.

  IRELAND—CASTLEBLAYNEY RAILWAY STORES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Monaghan, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the attention of the directors of the Great Northern Railway Company has been called by the traders of Castleblayney and neighbourhood to the injury done to meal, floor, bran, and other feeding stuffs which is delivered in the stores of that company owing to the swarm of rats that infest the place; and if he will take any steps to compel this railway company to protect the property of the traders who have to frequent their line from the rats.
  MR. RITCHIE: I will draw the attention of the company to the substance of the hon. Member's question.

  CARRICKMACROSS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Monaghan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tramps have been frequenting the workhouse of Carrickmacross during the past years, and that members of this class attempted to burn that workhouse recently; whether the inspector to the Local Government Board of Carrickmacross district has reported upon this tramps nuisance, and suggested any remedy, or will he ask a report from him on this subject; and whether, seeing that casuals to workhouses do not work, but walk from workhouse to workhouse, which are built so near to each other that it is recreation for them, he will consider the advisability of compulsory amalgamation of workhouses, which would be an inducement to make able bodied tramps work if they had longer journeys from one workhouse to another.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I have already stated that it is probable a large number of the admissions to the Carrickmacross workhouse belonged

  651
  to the tramp class. Three persons of this class were recently sent for trial to the assizes charged with an attempt to set fire to the dormitory of the workhouse. As respects the second paragraph, I have nothing to add to the statement made by me on the 26th July. If the guardians desire to confer with the Local Government Board inspector on the subject, he will be instructed to attend before them at any time they may appoint. With reference to the third paragraph, I do not think, having regard to the requirements of the deserving sick and poor, that it would be advisable to close workhouses merely for the purpose of imposing on tramps longer journeys in travelling from one workhouse to another. If amalgamation on general grounds is desirable, and can be carried out without hardship to the sick and destitute, the Board will at all times be glad to further the wishes of the local authorities in the matter.

  DONEGAL NATIONAL TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION-SCHOOL REQUISITES.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Donegal National Teachers' Association, held at Stranorlar on Saturday, 28th July, wherein complaint is made that when it is considered necessary to introduce industrial subjects into schools, adequate provision is not made for supplying the necessary apparatus from some definite source, as too many inroads are made on the incomes of the teachers in supplying the children free for the most part with school requisites, and in keeping the schools furnished with maps and other appliances; and whether the necessary requisites on the Commissioners' school list under heading "For Use in Schools only and not for Sale to Pupils" should be supplied gratis to National schools on the recommendation of the inspector, as the teachers in many cases have to provide these at their own expense.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The resolution referred to does not appear to have been received. The question of making an equipment grant as an aid to local expenditure, with a view to encourage manual instruction under the new scheme, is receiving consideration by the Com-
  652
  missioners. The proposal to provide schools with the ordinary apparatus for collective teaching free of cost is not one that can, at present, be favourably entertained.

  WATERFORD REGISTER — DISFRANCHISEMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF POOR RATES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that 2,500 voters have been struck off the voters' list in Waterford City for nonpayment of poor rates since October last because the rate notices were not served until about April, and that the people concerned did nut know that they should be paid before 1st July; whether he can say who is responsible in this matter; and whether he will take steps to save the 2,500 people concerned from being disfranchised through no fault of their own.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed that some 2,700 persons have been omitted from the voters' lists prepared by the town clerk for the borough of Waterford, by reason of non-payment of rates. The rate notices referred to in the question were posted in April as stated, and the notices calling attention to the necessity for payment of the rates required by Section 30 of the Registration Act, 1850, were duly kept published from the 5th June to 1st July. All statutory requirements were, I understand, complied with. There are no steps which it is competent to the Government to take in the matter.

  KNOCKADUFE (CO. MAYO) ELECT0RAL DIVISION—RATE ON OCCUPIERS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Knockaduff electoral division of Belmullet union, county Mayo, under the adjustment order of the Irish Local Government Board, a rate has been struck of £1 4s. in the £, which, under the provisions of the Irish Local Government Act, must be borne exclusively by the occupiers; is he aware that the rate so struck is made up of an accumulation of arrears extending over a number of years, and that more than two-thirds were the portion originally due by the landlords; and whether, having re-

  653
  gard to the fact that since this rate was struck a large amount of the arrears have been collected and credited to the union at large, instead of the division of Knockaduff, which is still liable for the entire rate, and in view of the poverty of the district, he will use his influence with the Local Government Board to grant the request of a memorial forwarded by the ratepayers of the Knockaduff electoral division, who are eighty-three in number, with rents varying from £2 to £4 per annum, to relieve the occupiers of a greater liability for the payment of this rate than that to which they were originally subject, and to permit of the payment of this reduced sum by instalments.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is not a fact that a rate of £1 4s. in the £ has been struck in the electoral division mentioned. The rate amounts to 9s. 11d. in the £ on land and 12s. 3d. in the £ on other hereditaments; but it must be remembered that no rate was struck in the county Mayo for the second half of the last financial year owing to the state of the accounts of the county council, and the whole rate was carried forward into the current year's estimate, which accordingly covered a period of eighteen months, The current rate includes 5s. 10d. in the £ under the adjustment order of the Board for the clearing off of old liabilities due by the division, but this special rate will be confined to the present levy alone, and the next half-year's rate will therefore be 4s. 1d. on land and 6s. 5d. on other hereditaments, and this, as already pointed out, is one-half of an eighteen months rate. For years past insufficient rates were struck by the guardians for the division, and they failed to complete the collection of such rates; it was accordingly inevitable that a balancing up of the account would find the division heavily in debt. The Board have received the memorial referred to, and have informed the county council, in reference to a proposal made by them on the subject, that they will offer no objection to the amount collected before the appointed day being credited to the division. There is no power to comply with the suggestion that the rate, or portion of it, be paid by instalments.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people
  654
  are under the impression that they are being taxed twice over for the same matter?

  COLERAINE GUARDIANS—PURCHASES OF MEDICINES.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to-the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Coleraine Board of Guardians received any recoupment in respect of medicines purchased by them during the period immediately prior to and ending on 30th September, 1899; on what date did the Local Government Board approve of the appointment by the guardians of their analyst; was any recoupment made in respect of medicines purchased during the said period, but used before the appointment of the analyst, and was any recoupment made for the said period to the guardians in respect of any medicines which the analyst for any reason was unable to certify; and will he state whether it is within the power of the Local Government Board in exceptional circumstances, such as the late appointment of an analyst, to dispense with his certificate of analysis in a proper case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Recoupment in respect of the full amount claimed as the cost of medicines, etc., for the half-year ended 30th September, 1899, was allowed to the board of guardians of the Coleraine Union. The analyst was appointed on the 26th August, 1899, and made his analysis of the drugs in use within the half-year, thereby enabling the guardians to obtain recoupment in respect of all medicines supplied during that period. The Local Government Board are not aware that the analyst was unable to certify in respect of any medicines obtained during the half-year. Samples of all the medicines supplied are taken and submitted to the analyst, and his certificates in the case of Coleraine Union were satisfactory. It is not within the-power of the Board to sanction recoupment until the guardians obtain a certificate from an analyst recognised by the Board, as required by Article 36, paragraph 4, of the Board's dispensary rules, dated 24th February, 1899.

  IRISH POSTAL COMPLAINTS.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Monaghan, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that inconvenience is

  655
  caused to the people of Doagh, Corlea, Greaghlone, and neighbouring townlands, owing to the letters for that district being sent viâ Shercock, instead of from Carrickmacross as heretofore; whether he is aware that the route from Carrickmacross to Greaghlone was established upon the guarantee of Mr. Francis Lambe, which cost him £6 per annum for some years; whether he will restore the delivery of letters direct from Carrickmacross to Greaghlone which worked so well and conveniently to the people of the neighbourhood; whether he is aware that the new messenger from the Shercock route refused to deliver letters to Mr. Patrick Murray Doagh and Mr. Owen Lambe, and if he can state what steps he intends to take in reference to this postman; and whether he will refund the money paid by Mr. F. Lambe in establishing this postman's route from Carrickmacross to Greaghlone.
  MR. HANBURY: It appears that some inconvenience has been caused to the inhabitants of the townlands referred to by the hon. Member, owing to letters for the district being sent for a time via Shercock, instead of from Carrickmacross as formerly. The post from Carrickmacross was extended to Greaghlone in February, 1891, under a guarantee of £5 4s. 4d. a year from Mr. Francis Lambe, but the guarantee was dispensed with in June, 1892, when the service 'became self-supporting. The delivery of letters direct from Carrickmacross to Greaghlone has now been restored. Some letters for Mr. Patrick Murray and Mr. Owen Lambe were not sent out for delivery, because arrangements for extending the free delivery to their houses had not then been completed; but a delivery on three days a week has now been established. The Postmaster General does not see any reason for refunding to Mr. F. Lambe the money paid by him under guarantee.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Monaghan, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that confusion exists in the district of Doagh and Greaghlone owing to the changes made in the delivery of letters; whether he is aware that no postman admits these and several other townlands as being in his
  656
  radius; whether he is aware that a letter was posted on 16th July in Middlesbrough for Mr. Patrick Connors, Doagh, Carrickmacross, which letter if sent by the usual route via Carrickmacross and Greaghlone would have been delivered on 17th July, but was not delivered until 24th July, and that several letters posted in Carrickmacross for Mr. Owen Lambe, Doagh, did not reach him for almost a week, although posted within a couple of miles of his house; and whether he will put a stop to the present confusion in letter delivery by arranging for a messenger direct to Greaghlone from Carrickmacross, as was the case since 1892.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General regrets that there has been some confusion in the district of Doagh and Greaghlone, near Carrickmacross, owing to a misunderstanding as to the new arrangements for delivering letters. It appears that the letters referred to by the hon. Member were sent to a local post office without proper instructions having been given for their delivery, and thus sustained delay. Serious notice will be taken of this irregularity, and instructions have now been given for the direct service from Carrickmacross to Greaghlone to be resumed.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  MR. ASQUITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Prevention of Corruption Bill, introduced by the Lord Chief Justice, has passed through the House of Lords, and that the principle of the Bill has received the approval of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, of the Congress of the Co-operative Societies, and of numerous chambers of trade, trade associations, and trade protection societies throughout the country, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of themselves introducing legislation, at an early opportunity, for the purpose of dealing with the evils against which the Bill is directed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I am bound to say that this Bill comes before us with very high credentials, but I can hardly commit myself to any promise of Government legislation without further con-

  657
  sideration than I have been able to give to the matter.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the number of Private Bills relating to localities in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively, introduced during the last session of Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the figures arc—for England 213, for Scotland 34, for Ireland 14, and for Wales 30.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury in what order he proposes to take the business on Monday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The first business will be the remaining stages of the Colonial Stock Bill and of the War Loan Bill; then we shall take the Lords Amendments, and then the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to call the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to the order in which the Votes to be taken on Report of Supply have been placed on the Paper. I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition asked for some further opportunity for discussion on the Colonial Office Vote, and that is the Vote which is first put down on the Paper. It will, however, be more in accordance with the usage of the House if the Votes which wore "guillotined" in Committee are taken first on the Report stage. I asked the Loader of the Opposition whether he still desired that this Vote should be put down first, and my right hon. friend told me that he had no desire that it should be so.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to something in the nature of a question.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the right hon. Gentleman understands my question. I believe the order could be changed even now on a motion by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member speaks not only for himself, but
  658
  also, I understand, for the Leader of the Opposition.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I never do anything without the approval of my Leader.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the Leader of the Opposition asked that the Colonial Office Vote should be put first, and I formally assented, I do not see how I can put it back in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. Cannot some right hon. Gentleman opposite move it?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: We cannot. It must lie done by the representative of the Government.
  MR. BRYCE: The natural course would have been to have followed the usual practice of taking Votes which have not been discussed. An hon. Member informs me that on the previous evening the Loader of the Opposition said that ho supposed the course which would be taken by the Government would be to put down the so-called guillotined Votes first.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course I am bound to accept that as the view of the Leader of the Opposition. It comes upon mo as a great surprise, because it will be remembered that he complained of the short discussion on the Colonial Office Vote, and asked me whether I could not give another opportunity for discussing it. Of course if he has now altered his opinion, and if he thinks the discussion on last Wednesday was sufficient, I should be glad to meet the wishes of the hon. Member. I gather the right hon. Gentleman is commissioned indirectly to state that.
  MR. BRYCE: I have not the permission of the Leader of the Opposition to express his opinion. I only expressed my own view, and stated what I have been told by an hon. Member.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is rather a perplexing position in which we find ourselves in the unexpected absence of the Leader of the Opposition. The best thing is to let the Colonial Office Vote be

  659
  taken sub silentio, and then we might get on to the other Votes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Speaking only for myself——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member has no right to speak for himself or for anybody else, as there is no question before the House. May I point out that the first Order of the Day, "Supply (25th July) Report," cannot be put into another place on the Paper except by the general consent of the House on a motion by the Government? To postpone it to another day would be contrary to the Sessional Order, which requires all outstanding Report of Supply to be disposed of to-day. Nothing can be done except to call it on, and then it may be disposed of as quickly as the House thinks fit.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next. —(Sir William Walrond.)
POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—

Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill,

Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill,

Elementary School Teachers' Superannuation (Isle of Man) Bill,

Elementary School Teachers' Superannuation (Jersey) Bill,

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,

Public Works Loans Bill, without amendment.

Executors (Scotland) Bill,

Lunacy Board (Scotland) (Salaries, etc.) Bill, with an Amendment.

Elementary Education Bill,

Companies Bill,

Naval Reserve Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Reserve Forces Bill [Lords],

Volunteers Bill [Lords],

Prohibition of Exportation of Arms Bill [Lords], without amendment.

COMPANIES BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 324.]
NEW BILLS.
  TIED HOUSES.
  Bill for the abolition of Tied Houses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Broad-hurst, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Hazell.
  TIED HOUSES BILL.
  "For the abolition of Tied Houses," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 321.]
  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to improve the system of registration of writs relating to heritable property in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To improve the system of registration of writs relating to heritable property in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 322.]
  CONVOCATIONS.
  Bill to declare the law in regard to the reform of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and to make provision for constituting Houses of Laymen in connection therewith; and for empowering the said Convocations and Houses of Laymen to sit together, ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Jebb, Sir William Anson, Viscount Cranborne, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Hey wood Johnstone, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Lucas-Shadwell.
  CONVOCATIONS BILL.
  "To declare the law in regard to the reform of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and to make provision for constituting Houses of Laymen in connection therewith; and for empowering the said Convocations and Houses of Laymen to sit together," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 323.]
SUPPLY [25TH JULY].
Resolution reported:—
SUPPLY [25TH JULY].
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £32,250, lie granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the subject of the administration of justice in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone, and I do so believing that the question is one which touches very nearly the reputation of this country. It therefore deserves the very careful consideration of Parliament. I hope I may be able to obtain from the Secretary for the Colonies some explanation and some assurance of a satisfactory character with respect to the matter I am now about to raise. I crave the indulgence of the House while I refer briefly to the debate which I raised last session on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.* On that occasion I challenged not only the conduct of Governor Sir F. Cardew in regard to the administration of affairs generally in the Protectorate, but I challenged also the policy of the right lion. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. Let me refer briefly to some of the facts on which I base my present remarks. In addition to our possession of the Crown Colony we have within quite recent years assumed a Protectorate over a very wide stretch of territory lying in the immediate hinterland of the colony. I take it that that Protectorate was assumed in order to check the encroachments of the French, which threatened to interfere with the trade of the colony. The French have no doubt proved, at any rate so far as West
    * See The parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxvi., page 100.
    662
    Africa is concerned, very unneighbourly neighbours. But the assumption of the Protectorate led to several very important and grave results. In the first place it necessitated a large increase of the Frontier police; that entailed, of course, an increased expenditure, which in its turn necessitated the finding of new means for augmenting the revenues of the colony, which had already begun to show signs of serious decadence. In order to recoup the increased cost of the Frontier police force and certain reduplications of offices which had been instituted, Sir F. Cardew resolved on the imposition of a hut tax. I am not going into the merits of that; I only say that the imposition of the hut tax was followed almost immediately by a rising of the natives, accompanied by bootless massacre and the shedding of much innocent blood. It paralysed the entire trade of the colony and brought about a serious reduction of revenue. It has been freely said that the real cause of the rising was the imposition of the hut tax and the brutal mode in which it was collected. These accusations weighed so seriously with the right hon. Gentleman that he did a thing for which he deserves the highest credit —he sent the best man he could find to Sierra Leone as a Royal Commission to inquire into the truth of these allegations —he sent, in fact, Sir David Chalmers, a man of known ability, who had spent many years in the service of his Queen in that part of Africa. He, after a laborious inquiry, reported that the rising and its bloody sequelæ were, in point of fact, brought about by the imposition of the hut tax and the mode in which it was collected. In the course of the debate to which I have referred I commented on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had had the Report of Sir David Chalmers in his hands since January, 1899 and that it was not until five months later—just before the Colonial Vote was taken—that it was presented to Members. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Report of Sir David Chalmers contained grave accusations against Sir Frederick Cardew, and that he did not think it right and proper that these accusations should be published until Sir Frederick Cardew had an opportunity of making his reply. I find no fault with that statement. It seemed only fair that Sir Frederick Cardew should have an opportunity of making any statement he could

    663
    in answer to the findings of Sir David Chalmers. But I confess that it was unfortunate that in his reply to me the right hon. Gentleman should have used the phrase "accusations" in connection with the Report of Sir David Chalmers. Sir David Chalmers made no accusations: he made a very laborious and minute inquiry in his capacity as Royal Commissioner, as a judicial officer, and he simply arrived at certain conclusions which were based upon the evidence brought before him. But the words used by the right hon. Gentleman certainly conveyed an imputation upon the impartiality of Sir David Chalmers that has naturally given very great pain to his; relatives who have survived that distinguished public servant, and to whom his memory is dear. I do not know that I could better bring that home to the House than by reading a short passage from a memoir which has been recently written by Lady Chalmers in vindication of her husband's memory. This is what she says—
    "Sir David Chalmers died on 5th August. Continuous work for several months in Sierra Leone at the worst season of the year, together with a return to this climate in the depth of winter, and the exertion of preparing his Report, without allowing himself a day for rest or relaxation, proved too great a tax on his constitution, already tried by the strain of many years of strenuous tropical service. He lived long enough to know how apparently fruitlessly he hail sacrificed his own ease and comfort, but was spared the knowledge of the painful reflection cast on his fairness and justice—qualities which he valued above all others, and which his whole previous official record had exemplified in a marked degree. On behalf of those whom he left, it is not too much to say that the depreciation of his work and the reflection cast on his memory served to deepen the sorrow of a great bereavement."
    These are very simple words, but it seems to me that they are not without pathos. I cannot help thinking myself that the right hon. Gentleman used the words which he did use in the heat of reply, and without meaning to cast any imputation on the impartiality of Sir David Chalmers, and I am strengthened in that view by the fact that the very things which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as accusations brought by Sir David Chalmers were, in point of fact, part of the instructions given to Sir David Chalmers by the right hon. Gentleman himself in the reference made by him. If I am right in that conjecture, I can only
    664
    express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of saying something which will assuage the pain that he has caused, and which was not at all deserved.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): What were the words I used? Will the hon. Gentleman kindly repeat the exact words?
    MR. HEDDERWICK: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Hansard he will find there that he used the words, "Sir David Chalmers in his Report had made accusations against public officials." The only public officials in question wore Sir Frederick Cardew and possibly the District Commissioners. The word "accusations" was not a proper word to use with reference to the findings of a judicial officer who was only coming to conclusions with reference to the evidence offered to him. Before I go further, there is one point on which we ought to have some explanation. Sir David Chalmers founded his Report upon a mass of evidence. The volume of that evidence fills over 600 pages, and these minutes of evidence were in the hands of the Colonial Secretary at the same time as the Report. But that evidence was not-furnished to the Members of this House until September, when Parliament was no longer in session, and, therefore, it was impossible for any hon. Member to form any sound judgment as to whether the Report of Sir David Chalmers or the reply of Sir Frederick Cardew was well founded or not. I think that was an injustice to the work done by Sir David Chalmers, and it is a matter on which we are entitled to ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. I pass from these matters—which, after all, are in a sense personal, although) I do not know that it is necessary for me to apologise for them; and it seems to me that justice should be rendered to individuals as well as to nations, and that if charges are made which reflect on an officer who has been appointed by a Minister of State, these charges should either be explained or defended or withdrawn—I pass from these matters gladly to that which is the object which I had more immediately in view, namely, to a consideration of the mode in which justice is now being

    665
    administered under the sovereignty of Her Majesty the Queen in this Protectorate, and to the powers and qualifications of the persons who are appointed to dispense that justice. To those who cherish the idea, and in some respects justly cherish the idea, that wherever the arms or the power of this country go they carry with them a strict and impartial law, and the strict and impartial administration of justice, I confess that the reading of that evidence compiled so laboriously by Sir David Chalmers is nothing but shocking. What do we find? In this vast Protectorate immediately behind the colony of Sierra Leone, and over which are scattered some millions of natives, justice is administered by District Commissioners, who have powers of life and death, and from whoso decision there is no appeal, who have not I the most rudimentary notion of the laws they are called upon to administer. Well, these are grave charges to make, but I think a short reference to the evidence compiled by Sir David Chalmers will more than substantiate them. I may, with the indulgence of the House, read I some extracts from that evidence. Captain Sharpe, who is by way of being a very superior District Commissioner in the Hinterland, a man to whom is committed the power of life and death, says—
    "I never knew there was imprisonment without hard labour. I never heard it questioned by the Attorney General. I fancy [he says] I can remember the expression somewhere 'with or without hard labour.'"
    Then the Royal Commissioner asks him with regard to some points in the Protectorate Ordinances. The Royal Commissioner says—
    "Then I take it that your view of the Ordinance is that, notwithstanding the provision of Section 48, which enacts that 'if any person liable to pay tax refuses to pay, levy on his goods shall follow; nevertheless, by giving an order to the same person that he shall pay, an offence can be raised up which is punishable under Section 67'?
    "Captain SHARPE: I read this Ordinance that where a man refuses to pay I can take my choice of these two sections.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: I may draw your attention to the fact that Section 68 does not deal with the subject of tax, whereas Section 48 particularly deals with payment of tax. I am speaking of the chiefs.
    "Captain SHARPE: I should read it that verbal refusing was resisting.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Section 68 does not bear any relation to the payment of tax?
    666
    "Captain SHARPE: I should say that in asking for the tax I was exercising my duty, and by refusing to pay he was resisting me in the exercise of my duty.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Then I would like to be clear upon the point with regard to these five chiefs: Was each one of them convicted of the three offences that are named in the sheet, namely—(1) Inciting others by threats to defy the law (offence under Section 67); (2) Refusing to collect the hut tax due (offence under Section 68); (3) Overawing by force a public officer in the execution of his duty (Section 68)?
    "Captain SHARPE: I can only go by the sheet. I cannot trust my memory. It is apparently so by the sheet.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Upon these convictions the chiefs were apprehended and sent to Freetown?
    "Captain SHARPE: Yes."
    Then the Royal Commissioner raises another point. He says—
    "Then I show you this conviction that you sent down as warrant for imprisoning them; this is not in your hand writing?
    "Captain SHARPE: No; it is my clerk's.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Just read it. You see that this is not the same charge as on the sheet?
    "Captain SHARPE: I did not understand it was to be the verbatim charge.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER; You see, on comparing this statement of offence with the other, they are different?
    "Captain SHARPE: It is certainly different verbally.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: I should say more; it is quite a different offence.
    "Captain SHARPE: Would it not have the same meaning legally?"
    Well, that is one instance. I take a shorter passage from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Crowther. He says—
    "I was present when Captain Sharpe made the order for the arrest of the live chiefs to be sent to Freetown.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Was any charge made against Bokari Bamp to which he was asked to plead?
    "Sub-Inspector CROWTHER: Captain Sharpe simply told him, 'You are charged with refusing to pay the hut tax.'
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Was any charge made against Santigi Kearch?
    "Sub-Inspector CROWTHER: He was charged with Ansinnani Bali with aiding the chief not to pay.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER; Was Bokari Bamp asked for his defence?
    "Sub-Inspector CROWTHER: I do not remember that he was asked.…Captain Sharpe asked Bokari Bamp after he had charged them, 'What have you to say?' He said, 'I do not say I will not pay, I will say I want to consult the other chiefs.' Then he asked the four others, and they said they did not aid him not to pay.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Thereupon did anything more take place, or were they at once sent to the canoe?

    667
    "Sub-Inspector CROWTHER: They were sent to the canoe.
    "The ROYAL COMMISSIONER: Nothing more took place?
    "Sub-Inspector CROWTHER: No, they were sent to the boat in handcuffs with a police escort."
    I pass to another—Captain Moore. In answer to the question of the Royal Commissioner, "Do you remember whether you took part in the hearing of the charge against Pa Membana on 21st January?" he said—
    "I tried him and sentenced him—a year's hard labour and thirty-six lashes. I wan sorry the Governor would not allow me to inflict the lashes."
    Pa Membana's offence was that he refused to pay the hut tax on the ground that he had no power, being subordinate to Bai Kompah, and that the people were too poor. I have drawn attention to those three cases to show how incompetent the District Commissioners are to deal with the law, because in the case of Captain Moore you have a man who has actually treated these independent chiefs as if they were felons, causing them to undergo the lash, a thing he has no right or power to do, instead of treating them as civil offenders on whose goods a levy might have been made. There is still another matter in this connection which has in my opinion a serious bearing on the whole matter, and that is that these judicial officers are at the same time captains and chiefs of the Frontier police force. What is the character of this Frontier police force? It is composed entirely of natives drawn from Sierra Leone—that is from the Protectorate— and in many cases they have been the slaves of those very chiefs, and these very men who are charged with the protection of the Protectorate and the care of property within it have committed all sorts of crimes from the plundering of natives and brutally illtreating them to the ravishment of women. These offences are not' committed against ordinary natives only, but against the wives and daughters of chiefs who are laid hold of. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary if ho imagines this state of affairs can go on long without serious consequences. How do we know how much this treatment has had to do with the rising in Ashanti, which is a neighbouring country? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted to-day that he does not know the cause of the rising, and it is not time
    668
    yet to inquire; but he knows perfectly well that news travels quickly from native to native across vast districts, and I can imagine—it may be wrong, and the one case may have nothing to do with the other—I can imagine that nothing would be more likely to induce the natives in the neighbouring country to seize a convenient opportunity to rise than the treatment which independent chiefs received from the District Commissioners, and the fact that they were drum-majored by the Frontier police composed largely of men who had a short time before been the servants and slaves of those very chiefs. These are matters, it may be said, the Colonial Secretary could not possibly know, and personally I admit that recently his whole time must have been largely aborbed in matters of much greater-importance and of much more absorbing interest; but it must be remembered that these things have been going on for some years. Indeed, before the South African matter became acute at all, these things were taking place, and it must be recollected that the Report of Sir David Chalmers and the evidence on which I have founded all the statements I have made were in the hands of the Colonial Secretary at the beginning of 1899. There is also this to be said, that the Colonial Secretary has received a memorandum not only from the Traders' Association, but also from the Chamber of Commerce in Sierra Leone, and a minute from the Bar Association in Sierra Leone. Nearly all these memoranda agree in certain recommendations. There are at least four matters on which they agree. One is that the public mind is dissatisfied, and I cannot wonder at it when the administration of justice is thus conducted in the Protectorate. The second is that the power of capital punishment, vested in these District Commissioners, should be abolished. The third is that there should be the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. I think I have already said that there is no right of appeal from the District Commissioners at present, and that the only check even in the case of the capital penalty is that before being carried out the sentence must be submitted to the governor, who is Sir Frederick Cardew. The fourth matter on which they are agreed is that natives should be permitted to employ the services of counsel or solicitor at least in all criminal

    669
    or quasi-criminal cases. To these recommendations there should be added that no officer of the Frontier police force should be a District Commissioner, and secondly that no one should be appointed to the office of Commissioner who has not at least some knowledge of the law which he is called upon to administer. These recommendations I very earnestly commend to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I think they are worthy of his attention, and it is in regard to them that I seek, if possible, to obtain some assurance that at least they will receive his serious consideration.
    MR. URE: I fully admit that the province of criticising and forming a judgment upon the administration of Sierra Leone is one of no ordinary difficulty. The subject is extremely complicated and embarrassing. On the one hand you have the careful and exhaustive Report of Sir David Chalmers, a man whose competency no one questions, a man whom the right hon. Gentleman himself selected on account of his judiciousness, long experience, and knowledge, and a man, further, who approached the consideration of the question with no sort of bias on the one side or on the other. He was a retired official, and was not in any way responsible for the imposition of the tax or the method of administration adopted in the collection of it. His impartiality and competency were beyond all question, and I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman, either in his speech at this time last year, or in the letter of 7th July, 1899, cast any sort of reflection on the impartiality and ability of Sir David Chalmers. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, if he used the word "accusation," which appears in the Hansard report, did not for a moment mean to cast any reflection whatever on the perfect impartiality, ability, and painstaking anxiety with which the Commissioner had discharged his task. It was certainly an unusual step to take—I do not say unprecedented—to pass by the main recommendations of the Royal Commissioner, which were, in the first place, to cease altogether the collection of the tax, and in the second place, to introduce radical changes in the Protectorate. The right hon. Gentleman was confronted with this difficulty: that, so far as I can judge, there was no practical alterna-
    670
    tive for him as a means of raising the revenue necessary for the purpose of keeping down the slave trade and slave raiding. If slave raiding was to be effectually controlled and checked in the Protectorate the Frontier police was undoubtedly necessary, and required to be paid. The natural requirements of the Protectorate demanded the imposition of some tax, and so far as I can judge from the Report of Sir David Chalmers, the alternative method he suggested would not have been adequate to raise the necessary fund to pay the Frontier police. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman had before him the very detailed observations of the administrator of the Protectorate—an officer, no doubt, who approached the consideration of the question with a certain bias. I think the right hon. Gentleman will concede that that was so. But at the same time I will frankly say that I have read with care his observations on the Report, and that they appear to me to be couched in language of studied moderation. I do not hesitate to say that his criticism is not reckless or ill-considered, but careful, minute, and acute criticism of the conclusions arrived at by Sir David Chalmers. No doubt in questions of this kind much depends upon disputed questions of fact. Great value is always attached to the opinion of the man who has seen and heard the witnesses give their evidence. The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree with me that in so far as the question before him depended upon the determination of disputed facts, he was bound to place greater reliance on the conclusion arrived at by the Royal Commissioner than that of Sir Frederick Cardew, who, I think, was not examined as a witness himself, and was, not present while the evidence was being taken. But while I make that observation, I am not one of those who attach undue importance—some, I think, do—to the opinion of the man who has seen and heard the witnesses, especially where the solution of the question which the Secretary of State had to determine depended to a large extent upon matter of opinion and inference drawn from the facts, and not upon the determination whether this fact was proved or that fact not proved; because as I read both the Report and observations, the divergence between Sir Frederick Cardew and Sir David Chalmers turned on the conclusions to be

    671
    deduced from documents. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to come to the conclusion that Sir David Chalmers' findings in fact had been successfully impeached, but rather the inference he drew was that they had been successfully challenged by Sir Frederick Cardew. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that this was a question on which two honest and impartial men might well hold entirely different opinions, and that being so, I cannot myself conceive that any administrator placed in the position the right hon. Gentleman is in to-day could well have come to a different conclusion from that at which he arrived, even although in coming to that conclusion he had to pass by some of the recommendations of the Royal Commissioner he himself had appointed. The criticisms that have been passed by my hon. friend who preceded me in this debate upon the competency and the character of the resident District Commissioners are certainly grave and serious. But, after all, I suppose the Colonial Department, like other Departments, must depend upon the implements placed in its hands for carrying out the work it has to do, and you cannot expect to get men thoroughly versed in difficult legal problems, and perfect in the exhibition of tact and discretion in the performance of undoubtedly delicate duties, unless indeed you pay salaries which would involve another tax far beyond the ability of the natives to pay. In short, the right hon. Gentleman must do the best he can with his District Commissioners, and it would be difficult, I think, for him with Sir Frederick Cardew's opinion before him with regard to these men, considering that he has had large experience, to discard the recommendation of that gentleman with regard to the duties to be imposed on the District Commissioners. Here is what is said by Sir Frederick Cardew in his observations on the Royal Commissioner's Report—
    "With respect to the District Commissioners all are English gentlemen and men of honour; they all possess considerable intelligence, education, and experience, and have unrivalled opportunities, next to the missionaries, of studying the natives from all points of view; they are in close touch with them, are constantly hearing their palavers and disputes, and besides get much information of their customs and habits through the police and native officials."
    672
    No Department in Downing Street can set aside an opinion like that from the man on the spot. We must do our best with the materials at hand, and, with the recommendations the right hon. Gentleman has made cautioning these District Commissioners to be as careful and discreet in the administration as possible, the hut tax must go on and be collected; and one is glad to see that recent experience since the rebellion was quelled has tended to show that the hut tax has not been met with so much disfavour by the natives as was at first anticipated. Now that they understand it better, and the motives for its collection, and also the advantages that will accrue to them from the imposition of the tax for the payment of the Frontier police, who, at all events, preserve the peace, and who have caused inter-tribal feuds to cease, they will pay with as much alacrity as any man ever paid a direct tax imposed on him, I have risen mainly for the purpose of inviting the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain strictures which are passed on his letter of 7th July, 1899, casting reflection, I think, on the impartiality and competency, the care and anxiety, with which the Royal Commissioner did his work. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, perhaps used the expression "accusation" without intending thereby to suggest any serious imputation on Sir David Chalmers.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a mere statement of fact.
    MR. URE: I hope that in what I am now going to say the right hon. Gentleman will not see any desire to suggest that he or the Colonial Department really intended seriously to question Sir David Chalmers' impartiality and competency, but I readily admit that it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman or even probably for those in his Department to master the immense mass of evidence we have before us, extending to close on 700 pages. I really do not think that it would have benefited the right hon. Gentleman in considering the question if he had perused that enormous mass of evidence. I have perused a considerable part of it. I think part of it is very unintelligible, and other portions have no direct relation to the important questions raised and referred to in the strictures which have been made,

    673
    and which, as I think, are not sustained either by Sir David Chalmers' Report or the evidence which accompanied it. The Colonial Office, I take it, rather fell into error from failure to minutely examine the evidence and the appendices than from any desire to impute want of care and competency on the part of the Royal Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman will find on pages 166 and 167 of the Blue-book the strictures to which I refer. I think they are four in number. I will take them in their order as they occur. In the first place, dealing with the important conclusion come to by Sir David Chalmers that "the arrests and imprisonments" of those who refused to pay the hut tax "were not legal under the law of the Protectorate Ordinance or any other law under which the District Commissioner was authorised to act," the right hon. Gentleman says that Sir David Chalmers in expressing that view was differing from the acting Attorney General. In his letter the right hon. Gentleman says—
    "As to the arrests, Sir F. Cardew has pointed out that the acting Attorney General advised that they were legal, and that Sir D. Chalmers, while quoting certain sections of the Ordinance, has omitted to quote those on which the acting Attorney General relied."
    This seems a small matter, but at the same time, when you consider that the Report was made by a trained lawyer, a man who was naturally to be expected to investigate with care and minuteness the legal aspects of the question with which he was called upon to deal, it does suggest some lack of care on the part of Sir David Chalmers, if not a lack of impartiality, when the right hon. Gentleman says he omitted to quote those sections on which the Attorney General relied. If you turn to Sir David Chalmers' Report, page 30, you will find that immediately after expressing his own opinion in paragraph 71, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, he goes on to state the opinion of the Attorney General. When I turn to one of the appendices I find quoted in full the opinion of the Attorney General, and following that opinion there is a verbatim citation of the sections of the Ordinance on which the Attorney General relies; so that it was not right to say that Sir David Chalmers omitted to quote the sections. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that it was scarcely a fair representation to say that
    674
    this most painstaking man had omitted to quote the sections upon which an opposite legal opinion to his own was based. I do not for a moment seek to offer any opinion whether Sir David Chalmers or the Attorney General was right. I am inclined certainly to the view that Sir David Chalmers was right. Whether that be so or not, I think I have shown that the Royal Commissioner was in this respect, as I think in all other respects, scrupulously fair to his opponent. The next stricture passed on the Report is a graver one. The right hon. Gentleman in his letter, page 167, says—
    "A very grave charge is suggested against Captain Moore, in paragraph 107 of the Report. The Royal Commissioner refers to a statement by a native witness that this officer killed a youth carrying a cutlass, although he adds that he does not lay stress on it; but when he examined Captain Moore, which was done after the native evidence referred to had been given, he put no question to him on the subject, and did not even mention that evidence to him of which Captain Moore himself at that time had no knowledge. I regret that Sir David Chalmers omitted to give this officer the opportunity which he has since had of denying the charge and thereby satisfactorily exculpating himself from a most serious imputation, it will be seen on reference to Sir F. Cardew's observations (paragraph 48), that Captain Moore indignantly repudiates the charges and states that the evidence was absolutely untrue in every particular."
    There are two statements in that paragraph which, I think, cast a very grave reflection on Sir David Chalmers in connection with the performance of his duty. In the first place it is said that he suggests a very grave charge against Captain Moore, and in the second place it is said he did not give Captain Moore an opportunity of repudiating the charge. I answer this stricture thus. In the first place I say that the Royal Commissioner suggested no charge against Captain Moore, but, on the contrary, stated distinctly that although the charge had been made he did not believe it. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Sir David Chalmers' Report, page 45, he will find words to bear out what I have said. Dealing with the question of the enforcement of the tax Sir David Chalmers says—
    "A youth, carrying a cutlass or sword, was met by a party of police, who told him to give up his weapon, and tried to take it from him. He did not surrender it, and was endeavouring to turn away, when two of the police fired, and he was killed. The matter is related

    675
    very circumstantially by Yan Kuba, Headman of Mabobo, where the occurrence took place, who had no conceivable motive for inventing the statement; also by Kanray, who, Yan Kuba says, was present as an eye-witness, and is corroborated by Boroh Cabendah. Murano Carimo also made a corroborative statement, but I do not consider his statement that the shot was fired by Captain Moore correct, which is not in accordance with other evidence, and I do not lay stress on it. On the whole of the evidence, although, of course, it has not been tested as judicial evidence would be, I am satisfied the youth was killed by the police, and in the manner stated."
    I submit it was not fair in the letter of 7th July to say that Sir David Chalmers suggested a grave charge against Captain Moore when he distinctly says in his report—
    "I do not consider his statement that the shot was fired by Captain Moore was correct, which is not in accordance with our evidence.
    That is a matter of which those who are jealous of the reputation of Sir David Chalmers very justly complain. I understand that that is one of the charges which induced the right hon. Gentleman to send the Report to Sir Frederick Cardew for his observations. I make no complaint of that, but what I do say is that Sir David Chalmers made no accusation against Captain Moore. I readily admit that the evidence with regard to the shooting of the lad was extremely unsatisfactory, and was subjected to very acute criticism—with the whole of which I entirely agree—by Sir Frederick Cardew. But when that evidence was taken Sir David Chalmers did not believe the charge. If that is so, of course the second stricture passed—that he did not give Captain Moore an opportunity of repudiating the charge—falls to the ground. Here again the letter somewhat errs. At page 471 of the notes of the evidence the right hon. Gentleman will find that Captain Moore was asked this very question—
    "Do you remember a man being shot at Makaia?—A. No. The only occasion on which a shot was fired was in the Kwaia country.
    "Q. Then I take it you were not aware of a man being shot at Mabobo?—A. There was not a single shot fired the whole time except in the Kwaia country.
    "Q. Do you remember being at Mabobo?— A.I have heard the name, but cannot fix anything.
    "Q.You are not aware of such an incident as a man being shot?—A.No.
    "Q. Anything about a man not giving up a cutlass?—A. Nothing of the sort during the whole of my command."
    676
    I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that those questions were directed to elicit from Captain Moore any contradiction which he had to give of the incident spoken to by the other witness. Captain Moore therefore was not only absolved by the Commissioners from all blame in the matter, but was actually offered an opportunity of denying the charge. I quite agree with an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman in a subsequent paragraph, that Sir David Chalmers was under a great disadvantage in the fact that he had not the benefit of cross-examination by counsel or agent representing the officers against whom the charges were made. That was certainly a disadvantage, because undoubtedly when you are testing the credibility of a witness it is an immense advantage to have him under cross-examination. Notwithstanding that disadvantage, I think the Commissioner did his duty admirably and nobly. These are just questions that anyone representing Captain Moore would necessarily have put if he knew his business, and that the Commissioner should have remembered to put them some days after the charge was made, is a striking testimony to the scrupulous care and fidelity with which he discharged his duty. The next stricture passed upon the Commissioner is with regard to a remark he made relating to another District Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman says in his letter—
    "There is a reference in the Report to evidence that Capt. Sharpe wounded a native by striking him on the head with a stick. Sir D. Chalmers adds that Capt. Sharpe did not deny this, although not admitting it in terms. Capt. Sharpe, I observe, gave evidence that the man was very roughly handled, but that he was not wounded in any way. The evidence referred to by Sir D. Chalmers was given subsequently, and Capt. Sharpe was given no opportunity of denying it."
    The House will see at once that the stricture amounted to this—that whereas it had been said by a subordinate that Capt. Sharpe had struck a man on the head with a stick, the District Commissioner, when in the witness-box, was not asked specifically to contradict that statement. I can give two answers which show that the Commissioner here as in every other particular discharged his duty with scrupulous fidelity. At page 219 the following question to Capt. Sharpe will be found—
    "Last time you were here you described an endeavour made to arrest Bai Bureh; there

    677
    was a man you got hold of and brought away for a short distance; it is said that you struck him on the head and that his head was broken?—A. He was certainly very roughly handled, but he was not wounded in any way."
    His subordinate, some days later, was asked this question (page 461)—
    "What force had he [the Commander-in-Chief] with him?"
    He gives a long account of the force, and then he refers to the incident in these words—
    "I saw the war-boys coming, and told the police to fix bayonets. The man shouted out, and Captain Sharpe hit him over the head with a short stick which had a knob of lead or iron at one end. One of the Frontiers took the sword from the man. At that time the man was bleeding."
    This was a mere incident in the course of an episode, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if this inquiry had been conducted with strict regard to the rules of legal evidence as understood in our own courts it would not have been thought necessary to recall Captain Sharpe for the purpose of saying whether or not he had a stick in his hand and struck this man on the head. If it had been the question at issue, it might have been necessary, but whether or not, Captain Sharpe does not specifically deny the thing; he says the man was very roughly handled. It was surely unnecessary to recall Captain Sharpe to contradict such a trivial statement. I must apologise to the House for detaining them, but really the feelings of Sir D. Chalmers' friends and relations are very keen upon this subject. My last stricture is in reference to another charge against a District Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman says in his letter (paragraph 26)—
    "Sir D. Chalmers states that he had collected information as to the arrests in the Bandajuma district from other witnesses, Captain Carr having forgotten, or not deemed it requisite in giving his evidence, to communicate the information, or indeed to make it known to me, that there had been any difficulty in the tax collection in his district. It is not alleged that Captain Carr answered any question incorrectly, and I observe that he was not asked about the arrests, either specifically or under a general question, for the Royal Commissioner passed directly from the amount collected before the rising to the rising; but to other witnesses the matter of the arrests was put specifically."
    The Royal Commissioner did not say that Captain Carr had answered any
    678
    question incorrectly. What he said was that he did not tell him that arrests were required to be made in order to secure payment of the tax. It is right to observe, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has failed to notice in this paragraph, that Captain Carr was going home on leave of absence, and therefore he was examined at the very commencement of the inquiry, within four days of Sir David Chalmers' landing at Sierra Leone, before the Commissioner had prepared that elaborate list of questions which he submitted to witnesses later on, and before he had made himself thoroughly conversant with all the incidents connected with the insurrection. According to page 12, Captain Carr was asked a question which I am bound to say, if he had been a frank and willing witness, would necessarily have elicited any evidence he had to give relevant to the difficulties in the way of collecting the tax. He was asked how much was collected, and ho goes on about the rising. I agree he did not make any incorrect statement, but, after all, is not that putting the duty of an officer too low, especially when it is remembered that in the Commission on which Sir David Chalmers went out to Sierra Leone all officers are enjoined "to be aiding and assisting" him in executing his commission. It was not much to expect that an experienced District Commissioner, who knew it was difficult to collect the tax, and who had had to arrest and imprison men on that account, should have volunteered that information without it being extracted from him. These are the main strictures passed upon the conduct of Sir David Chalmers in this inquiry. They probably do not seem to the House to be very serious, but they were thought sufficiently serious by the Colonial Secretary to warrant him in submitting the Report to Sir Frederick Cardew for his observations. I repeat I make no complaint of that, but I do think the Colonial Secretary will agree that I have successfully shown that the strictures passed upon this able and faithful public servant are not warranted, when one closely examines the Report and the evidence and appendices by which it is accompanied. I absolve the right hon. Gentleman from any intention to cast imputations upon the impartiality or the accuracy of the findings of the Royal Commission, and if he agrees with me that I have offered these criticisms with

    679
    moderation and with accuracy, I hope he will give some expression of his views to the House with regard to the services of Sir David Chalmers which will be satisfactory to those who regarded him as a man of scrupulous integrity. Nothing more is asked for, and nothing less should be given to the memory of a man who literally gave his life to the performance of his duty, and whose unimpeachable integrity and fidelity to the Queen and his country no one has ever attempted to question.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid ho thought his hon. friends behind him were quite justified in calling attention to the case of Sierra Leone and Sir David Chalmers, for it had given them an opportunity of drawing attention to a matter which had been crowded out by the more important questions in regard to South Africa. This was all the more necessary because certain reflections had been cast upon this old public servant both in speeches and in Reports. He thought the hon. Gentlemen behind him who had spoken on this subject had done credit not only to themselves but also to Sir David Chalmers by the manner in which they had drawn attention to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman when this matter was discussed last year on the Appropriation Bill was fully entitled to say that he was not bound as Secretary of State for the Colonies to accept the conclusions arrived at by the Commission. He had to judge of the matter as placed before him, and, of course, he made himself responsible for the conclusions to which he came. He could not agree with the pessimistic view which his hon. friend took of the present position as to the results of the hut tax, but what he wanted was to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give them some further information than that which they had received in the Blue-books in regard to the present position of the Protectorate of Sierra Leone. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell them what position this hut tax stood in at the present moment? He should be glad to know whether the hut tax was being collected peacefully and properly, or whether it was being paid under the fear of further reprisals. When the late Government were in office they did not think it was expedient to impose that tax, and he thought the
    680
    right hon. Gentleman, looking back at the position, would confess that perhaps the tax was imposed somewhat prematurely and hastily. The Report of Sir Frederick Cardew himself showed that there was very great danger of the imposition of such a tax leading to some native difficulties. From the evidence produced before Sir David Chalmers it must be confessed that this tax was imposed somewhat roughly and brutally, and he was afraid also with some illegality, and that some of these natives and chiefs were not treated in a way which was likely to lead to the peaceful collection of such an imposition as the new hut tax. He was afraid that this had produced a good deal of the difficulties which had arisen in the Protectorate. That result was shown in the right hon. Gentleman's speech last year, when he stated that regulations had been issued in regard to the collection of the hut tax which would get rid of the abuses in regard to its collection. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would say that the hut tax was not the sole cause of the difficulties which had arisen in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone, and that those difficulties were due to some fear on the part of the natives that they would suffer from civilisation being brought into their midst. But at any rate, if the hut tax was not the sole cause, it could not be denied that it was a very serious contributory cause to the rising, and what they wanted to know at the present moment was whether the state of affairs in Sierra Leone was at present fairly satisfactory, and whether the right, hon. Gentleman proposed to take any measures or make any alteration in the hut tax itself or in the mode of its collection. The remarks which had been made in reference to the position of these District Commissioners struck him as being matters of considerable gravity. What was the statement made in regard to that matter? He understood that the Protectorate had been divided into different districts with Commissioners at their head. These Commissioners were men who had not had any legal training or opportunities of obtaining legal information, and these men were practically put there with the power of life and death in their hands. One of the passages read by the hon. Member for Wick was very significant, because it showed that one of these District Commissioners was, put there not only as the administrator

    681
    but practically as a judge, and it was admitted that he was not aware that, in certain circumstances, he could inflict punishment with or without hard labour. He thought it was a very strong measure that these Commissioners without any legal training should have this enormous power of life and death. They had the power of sentencing a man to death and carrying out that sentence without any right to appeal. He knew that the matter went to the Governor for confirmation, but there was no right of appeal on the part of the man concerned. That seemed to him to be a very strong power to give to those District Commissioners. His view of the state of affairs in the Protectorate was that the pace had been rather too fast. In regard to the hinterland of our West African colonies there had been too rapid action, and it had caused fear on the part of the native chiefs that they were going to be absorbed in a way to which they objected. He thought the House was entitled to some information in regard to the present position, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory account of the situation. He hoped also that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them something in regard to the Ashanti war. Ho did not wish to say much about that war, because, at the present moment, they were denied information. All they knew was that the Governor had been besieged, and that a gallant rescue had been made by Colonel Willcocks. They also knew that an expeditionary force was being sent out which would cost some £250,000. It should be remembered that this was the third time that a punitive expedition had been sent into that country, and he thought the House was entitled to know how it was that we had been placed in this position a third time. Apparently the whole matter seemed to be, like the Chinese question, a sort of bolt from the blue. Something suddenly had occurred to cause this rising, and they wanted to know from the right lion. Gentleman if he had any information in regard to it, what was the real contributory cause of this rising, or whether it was, like some other events, in the nature of an "inevitable war" for which no inadequate provision had been made. They were too much accustomed to these little incidents to pay very much atten-
    682
    tion to them at the present moment, because their attention was centred else-where, and public attention had not been directed to these occurrences so much. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance that, as soon as the expedition was over and the necessary punishment had been inflicted, some proper inquiry would be held into the whole matter, so that they might know how it was that this rising had suddenly sprung upon them, and how they could prevent such a thing occurring again in the future. He was afraid this might be something in the nature of the Sierra Leone question over again. As far as one could judge, the position in Ashanti appeared to be similar to that in Sierra Leone. He was not saying whether it was right or wrong, but he thought a contributory cause of the outbreak in Ashanti was that when Ashanti was taken over the chiefs were given to understand that the independence of the country would be maintained under British control. But that pledge had not been kept. The tribes were being gradually broken up, and the chiefs were being treated in a manner they never anticipated. He hoped the right lion. Gentleman would give the Committee an assurance that a proper inquiry into the matter would be held, in order that such unfortunate occurrences, which were only too frequent and which were very serious from every point of view, might be avoided in the outlying districts of the Empire. There was one other question on which he desired information if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly give it, and that was the question of Jamaica. Two questions had arisen— one political, the other financial. With regard to the political question he understood it was practically settled. It was one of those cases in which, under the hybrid constitution which existed in many of the Crown Colonies, the unofficial members without any responsibility came into conflict with the official members with all the responsibility. He did not think that such a constitution could ever work properly. He did not blame the Secretary of State because, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, certain things had to be done under certain circumstances over-riding the action of the unofficial members; but what was done in Jamaica was done not only in a very high-handed manner, but he was

    683
    not sure whether it was done in a legal manner. With regard to the financial position in Jamaica, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was in a position to give a fairly satisfactory account of the finances of the island. The Committee would remember that last year a sum of nearly half a million was voted for the benefit of Jamaica, which was not for public works or anything of that kind, but in order to meet deficiencies in the ordinary revenue and deficiencies in regard to the interest on the railway which the island had to take over. He was afraid there was not much security for that loan. He did not complain of its having been advanced under the circumstances, but, looking at the present position of the island and to the fact that the island had to take over a mismanaged and unfortunate railway, it did not look as if much of the loan would be paid back. He desired information on three points— the financial position of Jamaica, the present position of Sierra Leone, and what steps were to be taken to restore permanent peace in Ashanti.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid his attention had been called to a matter which appeared to be of some importance, though the information furnished him was not very perfect. It had reference to the compensation which was to be awarded to colonists in Natal whose property had been destroyed or injured by the Boers. He understood that the Boers having entirely evacuated the colony, the work of compensation had been taken in hand by the Colonial Government. An allegation had been made to him that in considering the question of compensation a distinction had been drawn between private individuals and joint stock companies, and it was said that injury to the property of a company could not be considered. He had received a letter with reference to a coal mining company near Newcastle, which stated that instructions were issued that the claim of the company to compensation should not be considered. Supposing there were two collieries working side by side, one owned by a private individual and the other by a company, the former would be entitled to compensation, whereas it would appear the latter would not. A hardship would be done in such a case, and as the matter was
    684
    exciting great interest in the colony he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that no such arbitrary distinction would be made.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: With regard to the disturbance in Ashanti it has been a very serious rising. The Governor and his staff and several ladies were in the greatest possible danger for some period of time. I desire to join in the congratulations which have been offered to Colonel Willcocks on his remarkable display of military skill, perseverance, and general high, soldier like qualities. At the same time it should not be forgotten that Governor Hodgson also displayed very high qualities. The point to which I wish to direct attention is that the garrison at Coomassie was really inadequate to the demands of the situation. I asked a question on the subject about the 18th June, and the right hon. Gentleman then informed the House that there were stores for 300 men for three months in Coomassie, and that that was considered sufficient. That was a very extraordinary statement, and the Committee have a right to know who was the military authority that expressed such an opinion. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman also stated that the first attempt to relieve Coomassie had failed, owing to insufficiency of carriers. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been misinformed. The first relieving column failed because it was repulsed by a superior force. As has been pointed out, the situation at Coomassie has cleared by the remarkable display of military qualities both by the Governor, Sir Frederick Hodgson, and Colonel Willcocks, but I think that the cause of the outbreak ought to be investigated carefully. I never felt satisfied as to the manner in which the Envoys sent over from Ashanti before the occupation of that country were received by the Colonial Office. They were denied the right of a hearing, to which apparently they had a claim, and they were refused all credence to their representations. I may be quite mistaken in that view, for I am talking at second hand; but, generally, I fear that the Ashantis have had a good deal of provocation, especially the members of the old Royal family. I only want to say one word in regard to South Africa—in regard to the position in

    685
    which the loyalists there, who have suffered so much during the war, find themselves at the present moment. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there is a good deal of suffering among certain classes in Natal and in portions of Cape Colony—though not to the same extent—and also amongst British subjects in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. I admit that there is a great deal of difficulty in dealing with this question carefully and justly, and that it will probably require a very considerable expenditure before it is satisfactorily settled. But these people have great claims upon this country. The provisions of the British Government for the defence of Natal and the Cape border were very inadequate, although very ample warning had been given. That, however, is a very large question which I do not propose to raise in any detail now. But it is a very important question, and has a very large bearing on the claims of these people upon us. The defence of the Government as to the inadequacy of the preparations was that the moment they had determined to put the colonies into a strictly military defensive position that moment the enemy would have in any case attacked. That might be a good defence, but it had been pressed too far. A great deal of the want of preparation was due to defects in our constitutional system —making questions of war or peace depend on popularity or on popularity rather than on the real necessities of the case. Whether that be so or not, our responsibilities are great towards these suffering people. I ask whether it may not be possible to take some temporary steps, by sending out a high officer or a small commission to South Africa, which would have power to give some form of temporary relief to the loyalists not only in the British colonies, but in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, who have suffered through no fault of their own. We had hoard of temporary assistance being given to the relations of British officers who perished owing to the unfortunate action of another Power, until the whole question of compensation could be settled; and it appears to me that something in the same direction might be done in South Africa. If that were done, it would give great satisfaction to our loyal colonists, who have great claims upon us. I admit there are difficulties in the way, but a practical method might be found by the Imperial Govern-
    686
    ment of giving that temporary assistance which is needed so badly.
    Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In answering the various questions which have been put to me in the discussion, I will, in the first place, deal with the reference by the hon. Member for Wick and the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire to the Report of Sir David Chalmers and the incidents connected with the insurrection in Sierra Leone. I confess I was at first almost unable to understand why the hon. Member for Wick should have thought it necessary, when the matter had become almost ancient history, to repeat a large portion of the argument which he addressed to the Committee on the Appropriation Bill last year, and which I answered fully, better, perhaps, than I can do now, because then the facts were fresh in my recollection. But the hon. Members for Wick and Linlithgowshire are anxious that some feeling of soreness that has been created in the minds of the relatives of the late Sir David Chalmers should be removed. With that desire I heartily sympathise, and, as far as it is in my power, I will comply with their request. But in the meantime, referring to some of the observations of the hon. Member for Wick, I would point out to him that he has been very considerably misinformed in what he said about the hut tax. He went again over the complaints made last year—the harshness of its collection, and the conduct of the District Commissioner. I gave last, year the reasons for the policy of imposing the hut tax, and showed the absolute impossibility of finding any alternative. If peace and order are to be maintained in this vast district we must have funds, and there are no other means of raising them so easy or so suitable as the hut tax has shown itself to be, not only in Sierra Leone but in every other country in which we have had to deal with native races. As regards the incidence of the hut tax, there is nothing further to be said. But the hon. Member opposite, while complaining of what he calls charges against Sir David Chalmers, himself makes most offensive charges against those who are at present officials of the Government. I appeal to the hon. Member to consider the effect of such speeches. Defend Sir David Chalmers by all means, but do not attack those whom you have never seen, who are carrying on a very difficult work at the

    687
    risk of their health and their lives for a very small remuneration. It is these men upon whom we depend for the work of civilisation and the development which we have undertaken, and it is most unfair to make charges which, with all the rest of the speech omitted, will be sent out to the colony, and may have the effect of discouraging men who are doing their duty I in very difficult circumstances. I protest against that much too frequent action of hon. Members, and one of the worst offenders is the hon. Member for Poplar, who, after occupying an important position in the Colonial Office, might have been thought to be willing to defend officials, many of whom were appointed during his term of office.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: All that I said was that I objected to the powers given to those officials.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Poplar, speaking of a letter which confirms the statement of the hon. Member for Wick, says it is a monstrous thing that the District Commissioners should have powers of life and death in the Protectorate, and at the same time says ho believes that all the difficulties in the Protectorate and all the difficulties in Ashanti (eight hundred miles away, with two separate countries in between— and the most difficult country in the world) were caused by our interference with the privileges of the native chiefs. I quite agree that if you are to deal with the government of these vast protectorates — I am not talking of colonies, for they are different—you must, as far as possible, deal with them through the chiefs, and according to native customs and native law. What is the case? The chiefs have the power of life and death over their own people in the Protectorate, and all we have done is to insist that there shall be a European assessor in the shape of a District Commissioner, and that Commissioner is to see that justice is being done. The sentence of death is passed by the chief, with the consent of the District Commissioner, who has power to disallow the sentence. Something has been said about the qualifications of District Commissioners. It is not easy to find competent British lawyers to go into the wilds of Africa, with no white man within hundreds of miles. In the second place, what use do you think British law would
    688
    be where cases are dealt with according to native law? It is not our business to interfere with the chiefs except so far as is necessary in the cause of humanity and to prevent oppression. With regard to Sir David Chalmers and the reception of his Report, I really am very much grieved that I should be thought to have uttered a word of complaint respecting anything done by Lady Chalmers, whom I regard, and with whom I sympathise very much in the loss of her husband, who was a valuable servant of the Crown. But I do think the relatives of Sir David Chalmers are unreasonable, for when I read what I said when the first discussion took place, I hardly see how it is possible it could have the effect represented. I said—
    "I have not one word to say against him. He was recommended to me by his long experience of his work and his most valuable public services. He had been Chief Justice, and was therefore naturally supposed to have, and rightly supposed to have, a judicial and impartial mind, and he most patriotically agreed to go out to a country of whose climate he had had some experience. It was there, I am afraid, that he contracted the seeds of new disease, and he has suffered very severely in consequence. Sir David Chalmers was selected as the most impartial and judicious man I could find, and I am most thankful, most grateful, to him for the very valuable inquiries he made. I think he has placed a most valuable number of facts before us; and although I have not found myself able to agree with all the conclusions at which he arrived, I am none the less sensible of the obligations I am under to him for the inquiry and for the services be has done."
    How was it possible to say more than that? I had to do justice not only to Sir David Chalmers, but also to those who lay under the imputations which were necessarily implied in his Report. In defending them I did not accuse him. I did not doubt then and I do not now his absolute impartiality, and his painstaking, scrupulous general accuracy; but, having to act myself as a final court of appeal in this matter, I came to the I conclusion that in some respects ho had been too hard on other officers in the colonial service, and I was obliged to point out that in those cases I had not been able to accept his conclusions. But with his most important recommendations I agreed, and we have since carried out the reforms, he suggested, I believe with the very best result. I have further to say that the hon. Member for Poplar was inaccurate in

    689
    the statements he made with regard to the result of the hut tax. I cannot answer for the future. It is true that we do not know enough of these savage countries to be able always to predict beforehand what is likely to go on among them, what will happen, or what difficulty will occur. We have not a sufficient number of Europeans amongst them. All I can say at the present time is that the hut tax appears to be collected with the greatest ease. There is no difficulty of any kind, and there is no anticipation of any present disorder, and the finances of Sierra Leone are at the present moment in a very satisfactory condition. The hon. Member for Poplar and the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield referred to what was going on in Ashanti. I rejoice to confirm what has been said about the splendid gallantry of the native troops employed there under the skilful leadership of Colonel Willcocks, and the way in which Sir Frederic and Lady Hodgson and all members of the garrison endured the privations of the siege. Everything connected with that part of the incident must be extremely satisfactory to the House. What has been done up to the present time has never been done before and could never be done before. I wish to dwell on this fact a little, because it is no doubt probable that in future years, if I hold my present position, I may have to come to the House for a grant for what is known as the West African Frontier Force. The West African Frontier Force is a new force of 5,000 men raised from the Hausas in West Africa, and intended not merely for the protection of our interests in northern Nigeria, but to be used in local disturbances throughout West Africa. In the present instance, the moment we heard of the difficulties in Coomassie, although the Governor did not anticipate that the rising would be as serious as it had been, I telegraphed to Colonel Lugard, who was able to send him all the troops I asked for. Only about 1,500 of these troops had been placed on the coast a short time, and it is of these troops especially that Colonel Willcocks speaks in such glowing terms. Happily it has been proved that they are a most splendid race of fighting men, able to supply any deficiency of men we thought at one time likely to be experienced because we were unable to get Hausa troops. The hon. Member asks me what was the
    690
    cause of this disturbance. We have not the facts before us, and it would be hopeless to attempt at the present moment to give any reasonable account of what has happened. But I think that one or two things will suggest themselves to hon. Members. It is said that there have been three expeditions to Ashanti. The expedition under Lord Wolseley was not an expedition which resulted in any permanent occupation of the country; it was merely a punitive expedition; it was enormously costly because so many white men were employed. Then we had the expedition in 1896, which resulted in the occupation of the country; but that expedition was a bloodless expedition. We had no occasion to fight, and there is no doubt in these circumstances that the Ashantis entertained a high opinion of their prowess, and were prepared to try conclusions with us when they believed that they had a reason to be discontented. What special cause of discontent they have at the present time it is too early to say, but that will be, no doubt, a subject of inquiry on the part of the Colonial Office when the proper time comes.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BAETLETT: Why was there so small a garrison?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Because it was thought to be sufficient. It was quite sufficient for the purpose for which it was intended to be there —that is to say, sufficient for ordinary times. If my hon. friend intends to suggest to me that throughout West Africa and the colonies for which I am responsible I should have always on the spot a sufficient number of troops to put down any rising that may occur, all I can say is that I should cease to be an Imperialist. Powerful and rich as this country is, it is quite impossible to undertake that. We must take the risks of Empire. There is no doubt that if we profess to govern and control and be responsible for these vast territories, we hold them only with a comparatively small number of troops, and when a trouble arises in any place it is almost certain that we should not have at the spot the number of men required to put down the rising. All we can hope for is that we should have within reach a sufficient number of men to deal with it. If my hon. friend will consider what we are answerable for in Nigeria, in Lagos, on the Gold Coast, in Sierra Leone, and that

    691
    we have at the present time a little over 4,000 troops there, I think he will understand that it is impossible to be always thoroughly prepared for any sudden disturbance.
    *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I did not expect that at all. I said that a garrison of 300 men in an important position like Coomassie was insufficient. I still adhere to that view. Besides, the subsequent expense entailed by the successful rising is far greater.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that a garrison of 300 men is insufficient, and if we had had 600 men there it would have been no better. In order to have dealt with this most serious insurrection in a satisfactory way it is evident we should require at least 2,000 men, and nothing of that kind was contemplated as a permanent garrison for Coomassie. I have come to the conclusion that it is desirable in future to hold a much larger stock of ammunition in Coomassie. The greatest difficulty is in regard to food. In that climate even tinned food will not last. It is impossible to have a large supply of food to last for more than three months. Our difficulties have not come to an end in Ashanti. We still have fighting to do, and reinforcements will still be required there. But the great security for the Gold Coast will be found in the railways which we are now making. We have arranged, on terms most satisfactory to the colony, for the continuation of the railway to Coomassie, which was authorised two years ago, and as soon as we get the railway there I do not think we shall have any trouble in Ashanti. If it had not been for this unfortunate occurrence the finances of the Gold Coast would be in a most satisfactory condition. In the last two years we expected to have an average surplus of something like £50,000, which would have enabled us to repay the entire loan which we borrowed from the Treasury for the purposes of the last expedition. All that is now postponed for a considerable time, but if my anticipations are fulfilled the annual surplus in a reasonable time will allow us to pay the expenses not only of the last but of the present expedition. With reference to Jamaica and its finances, I
    692
    am sorry that the hon. Member for Poplar takes so poor a view of the future prosperity of the island. I am much more sanguine than the hon. Member. I think that the neck of the trouble in Jamaica has been broken, and I look forward with hope to the prospect of improvement from three separate quarters. First of all, the taxes have been considerably raised. I am aware the tariff has given some offence to some hon. Members, but the people must be prepared to bear the infliction until we may be in a position to relieve them, as I hope that will be soon. We have been enabled, thanks to the liberality of Parliament, to give a subsidy, partly by the colony and partly by the Imperial Government, to a great steamship firm, Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co., and I hope shortly to see a direct rapid and improved passenger and fruit service established between this country and Jamaica. I confess that I have great hopes of the development of what is even now one of the most important industries in the island. The third expectation arises from the improvement which I hope will now take place in the administration of the railway. It has been involved in serious embarrassments and has been badly managed, but we are taking the necessary steps to correct this defect, and I hope, now that the railway is in the hands of the Government, and they have established their right to control the financial transactions, we shall be able to put the finances in a satisfactory condition. I now turn to a subject mentioned to the House by the hon. Member for Preston. It has been stated that, according to existing proposals, compensation is not to be paid to companies in Natal and elsewhere whose property has been injured as distinguished from injury done to individuals. I do not think that statement is perfectly correct, but it is true that we have carefully avoided making ourselves in any way responsible for making compensation in the case of mines. I may tell my hon. friend the Member for Preston that in doing that we had in view the danger of setting up any precedent which might be extremely inconvenient hereafter. Fortunately, the injury done to mines, whether in Natal or elsewhere, has been very slight; but although I am not in any way prepared to pledge

    693
    myself to make any compensation to the coal mine owners in Natal, yet if the colony are themselves desirous of making inquiry into the matter I should offer no objection, leaving the question of decision for a later period. In connection with a similar matter the hon. Member for Ecclesall asks me a question in regard to the position of British subjects in Natal, in Cape Colony, in the Transvaal, and in the Orange River Colony, who are in distress. I admit that a great number of British subjects are in great distress. Their condition is a subject for general sympathy. I should be sorry if anything I say should be construed into any want of sympathy with them, or that we were ignorant of the sufferings which they have undergone in many cases in consequence of their loyalty. But if my hon. friend the Member for Ecclesall wishes the Government to undertake some sort of general responsibility for compensation in those colonies, I think he cannot have considered to what it would lead. The question of compensation to colonists is surely in the first instance a matter for the colonial Government. If this country is never to enter on the defence of any of its colonies without undertaking at the same time responsibility for all injury that may be done to those colonies by war, I think it would he a strong argument with many people against this country ever undertaking the defence of colonies at all. Let hon. Gentlemen consider what our colonies are. What are the liabilities of some of our great colonies? We might, under conceivable circumstances, be called upon to defend a great colony against a great Power, and that colony might be invaded and immense mischief might be done. Surely that would not be a case in which the mother country, which was expending blood and treasure in defence of the colony, should also be expected to pay for the necessary consequences of war? I cannot undertake any responsibility of that kind, although, of course, if there were special cases brought to our knowledge, I am sure the Government would give the matter their most careful consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution read a second time, and agreed to.

SUPPLY [2ND AUGUST].
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [2ND AUGUST].
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    CLASS II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £45,501, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £124,483, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Beard."

    CLASS I.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Change which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £226,403, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-

    695
    ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expense of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade."
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £132,685, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon."
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £35,487, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, the Light Railways (Ireland) Acts, 1889 and 1893, the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1895, the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896."

    CLASS II.
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,297, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,896, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons."
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding £96,407, be granted to Her 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 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her
    696
    Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
    13. "That a sum not exceeding £133,561, be granted to Her 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 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
    14. "That a sum, not exceeding £64,018, be granted to Her 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 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund."
    15. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Beard of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, and the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890."
    16. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,439, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments,"
    17. "That a sum, not exceeding £33,040, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    18. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    19. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,508, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and for Expenses under the Vaccination Act, Infectious Disease Notification Act, Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Public Health (Scotland) Act, Poor Law (Scotland) Act, and Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899."
    20. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,811, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
    21. "That a sum, not exceeding £63,245, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
    22. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland."
    23. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,117, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin."
    24. "That a sum, not exceeding £20,682, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and
    698
    Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
    25. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,814, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., and the Expenses of Collecting Emigration and other Statistics in Ireland."
    26 "That a sum, not exceeding £10,589, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."

    CLASS III.
    27. "That a sum, not exceeding £56,652, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."
    28. "That a sum, not exceeding £29,237, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."
    29. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Expenses of the Establishment of the Crofters' Commission."
    30. "That a sum, not exceeding £50,684, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal

    699
    Lunatics and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."
    31. "That a sum, not exceeding £33,510, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
    32. "That a sum, not exceeding £62,262, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of certain other Legal Departments in Ireland as are not: charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    33. "That a sum, not exceeding £64,710, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, of Commissioners, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
    34. "That a sum, not exceeding £56,150, be granted to Her 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, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
    35. "That a sum, not exceeding £752,408, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    36. "That a sum, not exceeding £74,443, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ireland, and of the Prisons under their control, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
    37. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,906, be granted to Her Majesty, to
    700
    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, 1901, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

    CLASS IV.
    38. "That a sum not exceeding £690,318, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."
    39. "That a sum not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her 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 1901, for a grant to the Board of Trustees for Manufactures in Scotland in aid of the maintenance of the National Gallery, School of Art, and Museum of Antiquities, Scotland."
    40. "That a sum, not exceeding £515, be granted to Her 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 1901, for the Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners for managing certain School Endowments in Ireland."
    41. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,079, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland, including a Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of pictures."
    42. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,300, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland."

    CLASS V.
    43. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the

    701
    year ending the 31st day of March, 1901, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

    CLASS VI.
    44. "That a sum, not exceeding £468, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Hospitals and Infirmaries, and certain Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances in Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."

    CLASS VII.
    45. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,191, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."
    46. "That a sum, not exceeding £37,030 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for a Contribution to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account."

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
    47. "That a sum, not exceeding £275,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
    48. "That a sum, not exceeding £204,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
    Resolutions read a second time.
    First six Resolutions agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Seventh Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £226,403, be
    702
    granted to Her 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, 1901, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc, in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expense of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.'"
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESdrew attention to the amount of £10,000, which was the contribution made by the Government to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. It was an extremely proper sum to contribute in 1865, when the Government paid no rates on Government property; but the Fire Brigade being now under the control of the London County Council, and the Government now paying rates upon its property, the reason for the grant had disappeared. The County Council did not want the money, and he could see no justification for its continuance. It would have to be paid this year, but he hoped the Committee would receive an assurance that it would be discontinued in the future.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,)pointed out that there always had been contributions by the Government to institutions in London which had never been made in the case of provincial towns. He admitted there was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and agreed that owing to the payment of rates upon Government property an entirely different position was created. In another year he would give the matter his serious consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions Eight and Nine agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Tenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £4,297, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during

    703
    the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.'"
    MR. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the delay in filling up the position of the third or Beading Clerk in the House of Lords. He believed the office had been kept vacant for almost a year, entirely owing to some misunderstanding or some difference of opinion as to who should fill the office up, and who should be the person to be put into it. The Committee of the House of Lords which sat to consider the question of its own offices came to the conclusion that whenever the post became vacant it should be filled up by one of the permanent staff of the House of Lords. The Joint Committee of both Houses, which sat in 1899, received that recommendation, and agreed with it. There was, therefore, a very strong recommendation that that form should be followed, and there were very good reasons for following it; but the office had been vacant for nearly a year, and the common voice of rumour said the recommendation of the two Committees was not to be followed, and that a person entirely outside the staff of the House of Lords was to be appointed to it. He complained that during the year a large amount of work had been thrown upon the other clerks of the House of Lords, and some inconvenience had been suffered by the public owing to the recommendations of the two Committees not being carried out. It was not the proper way to treat the officers of the House of Lords, and unless some explanation was given he should raise the matter upon the Vote early next session.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in point of fact the Joint Committee was neither more nor less than a farce. By the interpretation placed upon the terms of reference by the noble Lord who presided over it, the Committee was debarred from discussing any of the questions which the House desired it to discuss. The proceedings of the Committee, which was appointed at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, after prolonged debates, were rendered nugatory by their being prevented from going into questions which it was necessary they should discuss.
    *MR. LABOUCHERE: agreed with the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, but he could not understand the conclusion which had been arrived at. As they had been able to get along during the year without a third clerk, he thought they might be content with two clerks in future. The hon. Member opposite said that rumour told him that there was some dispute as to who should appoint the clerk. When the clerk was appointed it would be time to make a protest, but so long as he was not appointed it was the gain of his salary to the country, and he hoped the dispute might continue.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that two clerks were quite sufficient for the House of Lords. There were only two at the time of the Act of Union. When the Joint Committee sat to consider the question of the officers of the House of Lords he tried hard to object to it, and was ruled out of order at least half a dozen times. He tried to object to it on the ground that it did not contain an Irish Member, and, of course, it was a sham and a farce. It only required to have a Member of the House of Commons upon it who would not accept a pension for life, and he would have told the House of Lords how the work could have been done by two clerks.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said he thought the House was entitled to have a word or two from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on this subject, as it was mainly through his instrumentality that the Committee was appointed. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the result which the Committee had arrived at. He intended that there should be a searching and thorough inquiry, and there was not. As the right hon. Gentleman had taken the initiative in cutting down the salaries of the staff when the Committee was appointed, and as the Committee were debarred from making the inquiries which were intended, he thought the House was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was going to allow the matter to remain where it was or whether he was going to carry it further. If no satisfactory explanation was given, the House of Commons must use its time-honoured privilege and refuse to vote the Supply.
    MR. HANBURYsaid it would be quite impossible for him to go into the various questions of privilege arising between various authorities of the House of Lords. The Treasury had no control over the Vote, but had simply to explain the details of it. Undoubtedly the Committee were appointed to make a much more searching inquiry than they had been enabled to make, owing to the ruling of the Chair. Subjects were ruled outside the reference which he did not think it was considered would be outside the reference when the Committee were appointed. He was bound to say that he thought it was somewhat unfortunate that the Committee were not able to hold a thorough inquiry and go into a number of subjects which it would have been satisfactory, even from the point of view of the House of Lords, to have had thoroughly ventilated. It was impossible for him to give a pledge that any further inquiry would be made. As to the third clerk, the hon. Member for Carnarvon said with justice that he had raised the question in the last Parliament, and the object he had in view, which had
    been obtained, was that the salaries of the clerks of the House of Lords should be placed upon the same footing as those of the House of Commons, and, in view of the fact that the salaries of the clerks, which used to be higher in the House of Lords, had now been placed on the same footing in the two Houses, he thought that there should be three clerks at the Table in the House of Lords, as there were in the House of Commons. With regard to the point of patronage which had been raised, he could not speak with any authority, but he understood that there had been some discussion on the subject. The salary of the third or Reading Clerk was in respect of two offices, and he understood that the question in dispute was whether the Reading Clerk should be appointed to two offices or whether they should be divided, and two officials appointed as before.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 128; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 275.)

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Denny, Colonel

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

    Arrol, Sir William

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lowe, Francis William

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Faber, George Denison

    Lowles, John

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

    Fergusson, RtHnSir J. (Manc'r

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Macdona, John Gumming

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Bethell, Commander

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    M'Killop, James

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Bigwood, James

    Garfit, William

    Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

    Bill, Charles

    Gedge, Sydney

    Melville, Beresford V.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Brassey, Albert

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Monk, Charles James

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Butcher, John George

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morrison, James A.(Wilts., S)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

    Heath, James

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Purvis, Robert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Pym, C. Guy

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Kimber, Henry

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorksh.

    Rutherford, John

    Seeley, Charles Hilton

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napiet

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

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

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

    Simeon, Sir Harrington

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wyndham, George

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Spencer, Ernest

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Asher, Alexander

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Moss, Samuel

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Harwood, George

    Perks, Robert William

    Birrell, Augustine

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Provand, Andrew Dryburyh

    Blake, Edward

    Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hogan, James Francis

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

    Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swans.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Brigg, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Burns, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Strachey, Edward

    Burt, Thomas

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Wallace, Robert

    Caldwell, James

    M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Channiug, Francis Allston

    M'Leod, John

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Maddison, Fred.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dewar, Arthur

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Gibson Bowles.

    Edwards, Owen Morgan

    Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Sixteenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £13,439, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments.'"
    MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid, that in regard to this Vote he desired to raise a question with regard to which he would not trouble them in any great detail. It had been raised before, and the House thought he was justified in raising it before. It was this. The North Wales Lunatic Asylum Committee was obliged by the Local Government Beard to obtain a fresh water supply, and in order to obtain that, it was necessary that the level of a certain lake should be raised. In order to raise the level of that lake it became necessary to approach the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the purpose of
    708
    acquiring certain lands. The Woods and Forests Department said that in order to make the title perfectly secure it would be necessary to purchase the mineral rights. The committee of the lunatic asylum thereupon entered into negotiations with the Woods and Forests Commissioners. The chairman of the asylum committee called upon the Commissioners and drew their attention to the fact that the mineral rights which were, it was stated, to be acquired were of a perfectly nominal character and were practically valueless to them. In spite of that the Woods and Forests Commissioners fixed the price of the mineral rights at £500. The asylum committee were absolutely staggered at such a price being charged for rights which in their view were entirely valueless, and they wrote to the Commissioners setting forth their reasons for believing the rights to be of no value. No reply had ever been received from the Commissioners,but they did reduce the price from £500 to £444. When he replied to the Secretary to the Treasury on a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman replied that the committee themselves had voluntarily offered £400 for the mineral rights. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman

    709
    for that reply, because, although it was not accurate, he relied upon wrong information which had been supplied to him. As a matter of fact the North Wales Lunatic Asylum Committee made that offer because they were entirely in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. They wore compelled to buy the mineral rights, and to pay that sum of £444, which he contended was a great injustice to them. The mineral rights, as a matter of fact, were not worth a five pound note, and he himself would have been very sorry to give such a sum for them. He had raised the question for the purpose of pointing out and urging that in negotiations with public bodies the Commissioners ought to remember that the object of acquiring these lands was for the public benefit, and that it was their duty to act generously, honestly, and justly with any local bodies applying to them.
    MR. HANBURYsaid several points had been raised by the hon. Gentleman as to whether the mineral rights were worth the price charged. He could only speak from the information which had been supplied, which was, that £500 had been asked by the vendors, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. In placing a certain value upon these mineral rights, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had acted upon the advice of their valuer. He understood that the valuer put the same price on the mineral rights in this case as was paid in regard to certain other property in an adjoining district. He could not agree that the Commissioners ought to have sold the land to the beard of the lunatic asylum at a lower price than to a private individual. The local ratepayer had no claim to any special concession from the Imperial taxpayer.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was glad that the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs had raised this question again, because it had enabled the Secretary to the Treasury to make a statement as to the attitude of his Department on the question. One point had been made clear by the Secretary to the Treasury—one proposition had been laid down which he found it difficult to assent to, and that was that local ratepayers were not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Woods and Forests Commissioners. What had happened was this, that one Depart-
    710
    ment of the Government had compelled a local authority to spend a considerable sum of money in order to increase its water supply. So as to do that, it was necessary to spend money, and another Department of the Government, the Woods and Forests Commissioners, were approached, and they asked a price out of all proportion to the value of the land. He contended that they were not entitled to take advantage of the circumstances in which the local authorities were placed and charge anything they liked. If the Woods and Forests Commissioners had said to the Asylum Board "You are compelled to buy these rights and pay £2,000," they would have had no option but to submit.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he thought a local body, a quasi- public body, had been very harshly treated in this case. There was an analogous case in which the Woods and Forests Commissioners had acted in quite a different way. They had, in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, absolutely given fifteen acres of valuable public land to a quasi-public body. In face of that he thought that either their present action action was indefensible, or that, in the other case, they had done a wrong thing.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Seventeenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £33,040, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.'"
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLdesired, as the salary of the First Commissioner of Works was included under this Vote, to raise what he considered to be an important point. So long as the statue of Oliver Cromwell defiled the precincts of the House he would in season and out of season raise his voice in protest, and he should contest the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary. He rejoiced in the fact that he was a man of peace, but he noticed that owing to the reticence on

    711
    the part of the Irish Members in bringing their opinions before the House, there was a danger of their presence in the House being overlooked. On 9th October a resolution was passed by the House of Lords to the effect that no statue of Oliver Cromwell ought to be erected within the precincts of Parliament. With reckless disregard to that resolution the right hon. Gentleman, who had voted against Cromwell and all his ways in 1895, allowed this statue to be erected. Not only was his action disrespectful to the House of Lords, but it was wanting in respect to the House of Commons and his own party, because in 1895, when an hon. Gentleman, afflicted with a large Nonconformist conscience, raised the question of having a statue of Oliver Cromwell, the Irish party opposed it and the Tories voted with them. Oliver Cromwell was the last person in the world whose statue should be erected in the precincts of a constitutional assembly. He called the Mace a "bauble." He was no friend to the House of Lords, and he abolished it. He was no friend to the Church; it was true he did not describe the union of the Church and State as incestuous, but he destroyed the Church. He was a most hateful politician, even as an English politician, for he not only brought himself into public life, but, having commenced public life as a Radical, he brought in a whole string of relatives whom he pushed into public positions. The erection of a statue of this man was a standing insult to Ireland, whose people he murdered by thousands. To erect that statue within the precincts of a House of Commons which, owing to the exigencies of the circumstances, Irish representatives were compelled to attend, was a deliberate insult to every Irishman in existence. Was it felt that the Unionists were under such obligation to Lord Rosebery for having broken up the Liberal party that they were obliged to allow the monument to be erected? He should be glad to hear the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, who had himself on two occasions voted against the erection of the statue. It would probably be put down to "continuity of policy," but the whole transaction was a gross, cowardly, and contemptible insult, against which Irishmen would protest on every possible occasion.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I do not intend to say more than two or three words. The hon. Member has made exactly the same speech on three occasions this session, with, perhaps, a slight variation of adjectives, and I have explained on two occasions my action in the matter. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that I have defended that action on the ground of continuity of policy, and he is also perfectly accurate when he says I voted in 1895 against the proposal to erect out of public funds a statue to Oliver Cromwell. When I came into office I found that my predecessor had accepted the offer of an anonymous donor to provide a statue, and had promised a site. The donor asked whether the Government intended to adhere to the promise he had made, on the faith of which the commission had already been given to the sculptor, and we replied in the affirmative. The site was chosen by my predecessor, and that site we gave. In no respect did we interfere with the action which had been taken. I do not think it would have been fair to upset the arrangement when it had gone so far, and I am perfectly prepared to take my share of responsibility in the matter.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORdid not consider that the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was a justification of his action. This statue had been erected practically within the precincts of the House, in spite of the fact that both Houses of Parliament had on different occasions declared they did not want it.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The votes of the House were against the use of public money for the purpose.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that if the House decided against the use of public money for the purpose, the House meant by that to express its disapproval of the erection of the statue under any circumstances. That was the method by which the House testified its approval or disapproval of a policy. He did not, however, join in the condemnation of the donor of the statue. That gentleman was perfectly entitled to give money for the purpose if he so pleased, being a great admirer of Cromwell. His own opinion, however, of Cromwell was that

    713
    he was one of the greatest ruffians in the history of the country; that he did acts of autocracy and tyranny far in excess of those of the unfortunate king whom he condemned to the scaffold. After his conduct in Ireland, to erect a statue to Cromwell in a House which still contained 103 Irish representatives was really very like a message of war and enmity to the Irish people. On a previous occasion the First Lord of the Treasury made a comparison with regard to the attitude of Irishmen towards Cromwell, which was entirely fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman said he lived near Dunbar, where Cromwell inflicted a great and terrible defeat upon the men of Scotland, but yet the people of Scotland had learned, wisely, to forget the ignominy of the defeat, and they did not to-day hold towards Cromwell the feelings of rancour and hatred such as were evidenced by Irishmen. But the continued detestation and hatred
    of Irishmen was not due to the fact that Cromwell beat the Irish in fair battle on an open field, but because he committed the assassinations and wholesale massacres of Drogheda. The comparison should not be with the battle of Dunbar, but with the massacre of Glencoe, as to which the horror of Scotchmen was as fresh to-day as when the massacre took place. There was really nothing in the point that it would have been unfair to have refused to erect the statue, as there were many parts of England where people would have been only too glad to give a site where the statue might have been erected without flouting the opinion of both Houses of Parliament, as had now been done.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes,150; Noes, 10. (Division List No. 276)

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Curzon, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Arrol, Sir William

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Kimber, Henry

    Asher, Alexander

    Denny, Colonel

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

    Dewar, Arthur

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW(Leeds

    Edwards, Owen Morgan

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn(Swans'a

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

    Lloyd-George, David

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

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bethell, Commander

    Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

    Lowe, Francis William

    Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowles, John

    Bigwood, James

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Bill, Charles

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Birrell, Augustine

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Garfit, William

    M'Killop, James

    Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

    Gedge, Sydney

    Maddison, Fred

    Brassey, Albert

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Brigg, John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Middlemore, John T.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Monk, Charles James

    Burt, Thomas

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    Moore William (Antrim, N.)

    Butcher, John George

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morrison, James A. (Wilts, S.

    Caldwell, James

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Moss, Samuel

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

    Heath, James

    Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Provand, Andrew Dry burgh

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Purvis, Robert

    Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W.

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Kenyon, James

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Strachey, Edward

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R(Bath

    Rutherford, John

    Talbot, Rt. Hon J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.)

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

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Wyndham, George

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Tomlinson, Wm, Edw. Murray

    Yoxall, James Henry

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

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Souttar, Robinson

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Spencer, Ernest

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Steadman, William Charles

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

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

    NOES.

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

    Hogan, James Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    M'Leod, John

    Mr. MacNeill and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.

    Crilly, Daniel

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Doogan, P. C.

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Eighteenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.'"
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am very conscious of the inconvenience of dealing with Votes in Supply on Report, and so far as I have been able I have abstained from doing so. At present I can only make one speech upon the subject, and in matters of this kind it is almost impossible to deal with such a subject in a satisfactory manner in one speech. In this instance I am forced to take this course, because this is one of the Votes which was guillotined last night, for out of 156 Votes 46 had their heads cut off last night without any discussion at all. This is a Vote for Foreign and other Secret Services of Her Majesty's Government; in other words, it is a sum of money which Her Majesty's Government asks for from this House in order to get private information from persons whose names it is not allowed to publish, and I need scarcely remind the House that it is one of those Votes which entirely escapes all audit and control, and almost all inquiry in this House. It is only accidentally that I am able on this occasion to animadvert upon the question of secret service money. I am by no means opposed to voting sums of money for secret services, for I believe it is absolutely necessary to have some fund from which to reward those who give this private information which is necessary for
    716
    the safety of the country. I will go further and say that this money contrasts in a most remarkable manner with the much larger sums spent by other countries every year on a similar service. It is relatively a small sum, and it is absolutely necessary that such money should be spent. But if it be necessary to spend this money in ordinary times of peace, it is absolutely indispensable in times of war, and the English Government should have a considerable sum at its disposal to obtain information which may become of the most vital importance. In the time of Pitt and Napoleon we spent large sums of money in this way, and there arose a race of men who during the war between England and France acted as spies, and gave information to both sides. That is the nature of a spy, for if you want to get information from him as a rule you have not only got to pay him in money, but you have to give him some information which he may take to the other side. In times of war such information is most necessary. This is, perhaps, the one Vote among the sums voted by Parliament that escapes all subsequent examination. You vote this money and it goes into the hands of the Ministers, and then it absolutely disappears. All that we know is that particular Ministers have certified that the money has been expended with their approval. The Comptroller and Auditor General himself knows no more than this. But I shall be able to show that we have some means of knowing how the secret service money has been spent. If the secret service money is spent with judgment and in order to obtain true information it is extremely well spent; but if it is spent to obtain not true but false information, instead of being a benefit it

    717
    is a most enormous injury, and that is exactly what has happened in this case, as I shall very shortly be able to show. In the beginning of the war with the Boers it became an extremely important matter that we should stop the carriage of contraband of war at Delagoa Bay——
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the application, as he conceives it to be, of secret service money; the only question here is whether the House should vote a certain sum of money as secret service money. If any Department is known to have expended some of that money upon any particular object, then it may be called to account for it on the Vote for that Department. The question which can be discussed is, whether Parliament ought to authorise the Government to spend a sum of £65,000 for which they have not to account.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not propose to go into detail, but the object of my few remarks will be to claim a better control over the expenditure of this secret service money.
    *MR. SPEAKER: But the hon. Member was proceeding to deal with the question as to whether some of this money had been properly spent upon obtaining information at Delagoa Bay, and he is not entitled to do that.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What I am going to say and what I propose to argue is that this secret service money has been so spent as to procure false information for the Government, and that has resulted in Her Majesty's Government capturing ships in the belief that they had on board contraband of war when they had not. They failed to stop contraband of war going to the Boers, and this was in consequence of the way in which the secret service money was spent, and in regard to that I want to make some suggestions.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That is quite out of order upon this Vote.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESreferred to the fact that the Vote had increased from £36,000 to £65,000, and asked whether he might suggest that in expending the additional sum advice should be taken
    718
    from merchants, stevedores, shippers, and others acquainted with the rules governing the shipping of cargo.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member desires to get behind my ruling. All I can say is that, should he endeavour to do so, I shall do my best to stop him.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I assure you, Sir, I should not have the presumption to entertain such a desire. But I will abandon that line of argument, having indicated what I wished to say, and confine myself to generalities. My generality is this: Although it may be quite right that a sum of £36,000 should be voted for secret service, that an extra £300 a year should be voted for the management of the fund, and that the management should be placed in the hands of officials of the Foreign Office, still it is not right to ask us to increase that sum to the extent now before us unless we have some further means of controlling the secret service money. At present we have no information whatever about it. I observe the Vote is for "foreign and other" secret service money. What is the "other" secret service money? For all I can tell, it may be spent in the United Kingdom.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The manner in which the money is spent is not in issue here. If the House does not choose to entrust the Government with secret service money, that is a reason for not voting it; but if it is voted as secret service money there can be no question on the Secret Service Vote as to how it should be expended.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I will abandon that line of argument also. I will only say it is extremely unsatisfactory that a Vote should be presented to this House as to which we have no information given us, and as to which we can make no inquiry either before or after it is expended, even though the amount has been more than doubled. My belief is that a large proportion of this money during the present year has been expended in such a way that we ought not to vote one farthing of it. I regret that under your ruling I cannot give, as I should have been able to do, in detail my reasons for believing that. These reasons are very strong and important,

    719
    and I think it is extremely doubtful whether, if we had been able to discuss the question in full, the House would have felt justified in agreeing to this important Vote.
    MR. DALZIEL: I can conceive that in running an empire such as ours it may be necessary under certain circumstances to utilise a fund of this description, but at the same time I have some difficulty in understanding; why the enormous police service in this country should not be used for the purpose for which this money is provided. The Prime Minister a short time ago accounted for the failure to obtain proper information about the Beer forces by the fact that this House voted such a small amount of secret service money. It is for us to consider whether the difference in the situation as it was and as it might have been is satisfied by the increased amount which the Government are now asking us to provide. The main object I had in rising, however, was to ask for a pledge that no portion of this money would be devoted to any purpose other than that for which we are voting it. I think we are entitled to have a straight answer to a straight question. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge on behalf of the Government that no portion of this Vote will be devoted to the support of any political candidates or to the satisfaction of any political interest at any General Election which may take place? If a satisfactory answer is given, it will, to some extent, remove my opposition to this Vote.
    MR. HANBURY: I am afraid I cannot give any pledge of the sort. It is extremely unlikely that the money will be used for any such purpose, but I cannot undertake to tie the hands of the Government as to the purposes to which they may devote this secret service money. The money is voted by the House to the Government without any limitation as to the purposes to which it should be applied, and I cannot make any pledge as desired by the hon. Member.
    MR. MADDISONsaid he had always objected to entrusting any Government with such a large sum of money for which they were accountable to no one, and about which Parliament and the country knew abso-
    720
    lutely nothing except that they had to pay it. With regard to the pledge asked for by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, if it was ridiculous, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to suppose that the money would be devoted to the purpose suggested, why did not the Secretary to the Treasury at once give the assurance asked for? The Vote was for "foreign and other" purposes. Those words were very wide, but the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately made them wider still by refusing to give this definite pledge in reply to a plain question. For all he knew, therefore, he might be fighting at the next election against someone receiving money from Her Majesty's Government. He could only say that he should vote against the resolution. It was a most dangerous thing in this democratic age that £65,000, or an increase of £35,000 over last year, should be voted for secret service on the eve of a General Election. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman gave the best reply he could, but that reply was most unsatisfactory. They had had in a brief space a confirmation of their worst doubts about this secret service money. He ventured to say in the nations where the most secret service money was spent there were the most vamped-up crime, and there the worst deeds took place. Secret service money had always been the minister of tyranny and corruption. If the right hon. Gentleman could have relieved them of the slightest doubts they would not have put him to the trouble of a division. He should certainly vote against this resolution.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am amazed at the humiliating nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. It might have been expected that the suggestion that this money, taken from the public, was to be devoted in aid of a political campaign, would had been repudiated with scorn and indignation; but Members are left to draw their own inference from the fact that the question was met in the way it was. I will make one point which I hope the public will remember, and that is that this sum of £30,000 additional voted on the eve of a General Election is exactly the amount of the cheque which Hooley sent to the responsible heads of the Tory party—a cheque kept for months in the hope that it would be cashed, and which they only decided not to cash when they

    721
    had to make a virtue of necessity. What they could not get from Hooley they are now taking from the country.
    MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.): If there is any political risk to the Government connected with the next General Election it is that they may come back to the House with too great a majority; and if any secret service money is expended it should be rather devoted to the purpose of seeing the balance between parties more evenly maintained. I cannot, however, conceive that anybody could imagine that secret service money would be applied to increasing the already too large disparity between the two parties in this House. Apart from that, one would like to think that there is no possibility of any use being made of secret service money for party purposes.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: The right hon. Gentleman has surely no hesitation whatever in uttering a word in order to reassure the House and the country, whose confidence in the Government has been considerably shaken. We know that in even recent times this particular fund was applied to purposes wholly illegitimate. When the amount of this fund is being doubled for purposes mainly foreign in their character, we should have a definite pledge that not a single penny of it will be applied to political party purposes. A most reasonable appeal has been made to the right hon. Gentleman; but of course if that appeal cannot be answered we can only place one construction upon it, and must come to the conclusion—though with the greatest possible hesitation—that the Government are going to devote the secret service money to the help of their friends at the General Election. I appeal once more to the right hon. Gentleman to set our minds at rest in this matter, and I can assure him that any word he can say in that direction will be acceptable to the House and the country tonight.
    MR. HANBURY: I crave that indulgence of the House to amplify what I
    said before. When a Vote is given by the House for a general purpose I do not think that a Minister ought to undertake to limit the use of it in any way. But I will at the same time express my own opinion that this money is given not for party, but for national purposes, and that in my opinion it would be despicable to use what is given for national purposes for party purposes. I cannot conceive that a single penny of this fund could possibly be used for party purposes.
    MR. CHANNING: My hon. friend was amply justified in raising this question by the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury. It seems to me almost incredible that the money should be applied in the way suggested, and I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which he has made it. I suppose that the secret service money passes through the same phases as other Votes, and that if there is any surplus at the end of the year that amount is carried to other accounts in the usual way
    MR. HANBURY: It is not; the balance is surrendered.
    MR. CHANNING: The balance is appropriated to other purposes. To a certain extent this fund is not large enough at the present time. I have spent some little time in reading the Blue-book in regard to China, and I am bound to say that the information we have obtained in regard to the growth of armaments in that country has been of a very insufficient character. It seems to me that if those entrusted with the management of affairs in China had been allowed the use of this fund better information might have been obtained forecasting the present disturbances.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 32. (Division List No.277.)

    AYES.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bethell, Commander

    Arrol, Sir William

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Bigwood, James

    Bill, Charles

    Garfit, William

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Morrison, James A. (Wilts., S.)

    Brigg, John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Brassey, Albert

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Butcher, John George

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm)

    Howard, Joseph

    Purvis, Robert

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. G. Thomson

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

    Kenyon, James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Kimber, Henry

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Laurie, Lieut. -General

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

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

    Spencer, Ernest

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Strachey, Edward

    Denny, Colonel

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Francis William

    Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E(Taunt'n

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lowles, John

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L

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

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    William's, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. ER. (Bath

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

    M'Killop, James

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flower, Ernest

    Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Monk, Charles James

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Edwards, Owen Morgan

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Asher, Alexander

    Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

    Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hogan, James Francis

    Souttar, Robinson

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Burt, Thomas

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Caldwell, James

    M'Leod, John

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Moss, Samuel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Dewar, Arthur

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Maddison.

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Thirty-first Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £33,510, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland.'"
    *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: It will be in the recollection of the House that I lately called attention to what I conceived to be a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the arrest on warrant of two of my constituents—Mr. O'Keefe,
    724
    the manager, and Mr. Keene, the editor, of the Kilkenny People. They were brought before two magistrates on a charge of having published the proceedings of a public meeting which was held two months before. I may say that Mr. O'Keefe is one of the most respected citizens in Kilkenny. He was mayor of the city last year, and Mr. Keene was a member of the corporation only a few months ago. If these gentlemen committed any offence I am not for a moment going to excuse them in the least. Nor am I going to prejudge the trial in the least. But I say it is a most extraordinary procedure that they should be brought up in the manner I have described on the 1st

    725
    August for the publication in their paper on 2nd June of a resolution passed at a public meeting. I do not know the nature of that resolution, and therefore cannot defend it, but according to the information I have obtained from some of my constituents, there was a mooting of the organisation known in Ireland as the United Irish League, at Mullinahone, county Tipperary, on the 27th May, and there, it is alleged, some resolution was passed. A report was supplied to the press in the ordinary way, and was published in the Kilkenny People. Thanks to the action of the Crown that resolution and that paper have obtained a notoriety they never would have got otherwise. The Crown might within two mouths have been able to lay their hands on the people who passed the resolution and have prosecuted them, and not have dealt with the manager and editor of the paper and dragged them before two magistrates—one of them imported for the occasion. I say that this is as gross an interference with the freedom of the press as over occurred in Ireland, and that is saying a great deal. What Minister would dare to do such a thing in any part of Great Britain? The Crown might have trusted the Kilkenny bench of magistrates, composed of gentlemen of all sorts of politics, to deal with the two gentlemen—one of whom, as I have said, was only a few months ago mayor of the city, and the other a member of the corporation. I can account for it in no way except that the Government were in hopes that Parliament would be up before attention could be called to the case. I leave it to the Attorney General for Ireland to explain how it took him two months to hatch this case, and why it is that, with the ordinary law and a variety of Coercion Acts at his hand, he has had recourse to the ancient and obsolete Whiteboy Acts. Any amount of multiplication of the offence may have taken place in the meantime since the Mullinahone meeting. I want to know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not act on the principle that prevention is better than cure, and why ho did not step in to prevent the publication of the resolution, and why he did not visit those who passed the resolution with punishment, if passing it was illegal. Both Mr. Keene and Mr. O'Keefe are personal friends of my own, and they are not the men to evade responsibility for what they have done
    726
    publicly; neither are the people of Mullinahone the people to evade responsibility. They are gentlemen who stand up to their guns and take the consequences. I say it is monstrous, instead of proceeding in the ordinary way, to drag them through the streets of the city over which one of them has presided. They might have been proceeded against by ordinary summons instead of under the Whiteboy Acts. I do not propose to detain the House at any length, but I certainly would have failed in my duty to my constituents if I had not brought before the House such a gross attempt to muzzle the press. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is trying to destroy that paper because it has an enormous Nationalist influence in the city of Kilkenny. But if that was his object, I promise him that he has failed; he has only given it a better advertisement and a better claim on public confidence than it ever had before. What does the right hon. Gentleman, expect to gain by this action? I shall feel it my duty and pleasure to go into that city and setup a branch of the Irish League now, and we will give him resolutions quite as hot as he will relish them in Kilkenny city, without waiting for them to be imported from Mullinahone.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The hon. Member has indulged in a freedom which it would be obviously most improper for me to follow, because he has criticised and entered into the validity of a charge that is now pending against these two men.
    *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I ask to be allowed to explain that I did nothing of the kind. I did not defend the resolution or the publication of it. All I said was that the Crown had the proper means two mouths ago to stop it.
    MR. ATKINSON: If the hon. Member did not moan to discuss the nature of the charge, I am at a loss to understand what he means when he talks of muzzling the press.
    *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I rise to order. I did not say——
    *MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Attorney General is putting a construction on the words of the hon. Member.
    MR. ATKINSON: It would be unbecoming on my part if I let fall one word which might tend to prejudice accused persons over whom a charge is pending and who may yet have to stand their trial. And therefore it is absolutely impossible to enter into a discussion of the motives or object of the prosecution, and why a particular mode of procedure was adopted. I do not wish to enter into the facts of the case or to discuss them. I merely say that the hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that the rising of Parliament had anything to do with the prosecution. These people are accused of the very serious crime—under the 3rd section of 1 and 2 William IV., c. 44—of printing certain matters tending to incite persons to unlawful combination, and to exercise intimidation upon a particular individual to do or not to do a particular thing.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That applies only to Ireland.
    MR. ATKINSON: Of course it refers only to Ireland. That is the crime of which these gentlemen are accused, and if they are guilty of that crime it is preposterous to talk of the liberty of the press, as if there was any liberty of the press, which should be recognised, in instigating to commit a crime. The hon. Member said that the Crown ought to find out who passed the resolution. The offence was not passing the resolution, but publishing it. That is the crime of which these gentlemen are accused. The hon. Gentleman will not contend that when a man commits an offence he should not be brought before the magistrates and dealt with. One process is as legal as another, and unless it be conceded that the criminal should be allowed to choose the mode with which he should be dealt with and the tribunal before which he should come to be tried, there can be no complaint. Every care was taken, and every precaution, to avoid anything like indignity being cast upon these two gentlemen, and to save annoyance to them except what was absolutely necessary. Mr. O'Keefe himself thanked the Crown Solicitor for the kind consideration with which he was treated when he was brought before the magistrates. The hon. Gentleman said he was dragged through the streets; he might as well have said he was beheaded no one
    728
    but Mr. O'Keefe himself and the constables who effected the arrest knew that he was arrested. It is impossible at the present early stage of the case, before it has been investigated, to enter into all the reasons which induced the Crown to take the proceeding which is now objected to, but when the prosecution has come to a conclusion I shall be prepared to justify to the satisfaction of the House the steps which the Crown took in this matter.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he did not propose to discuss the nature of the charge which was made against these two gentlemen, or the evidence in support or against of that charge. Not only would such a proceeding be an abuse of the privileges of a Member of Parliament, but it might prejudice the case of these gentlemen. The real issue between the Attorney General and the Nationalist Members was as to the particular form of procedure adopted in this case. The procedure was to bring these gentlemen up under the Whiteboy Acts. So long ago as 1880 or 1881 he introduced a Bill to repeal these Acts, which received a considerable amount of support, and most of the Members were rather shocked to find that such archaic, obsolete, and savage Acts still remained on the Statute-book. The Whiteboy Acts applied to every kind of agrarian disputes, and so savage were they in their punishments, and so insidious and furtive and dangerous, that under a Whiteboy Act a man for a very trivial offence could be sentenced to seven years penal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman had said that editors should have no different treatment to anybody else. With that proposition he agreed. He himself had filled the difficult and trying position of an editor, and had occasionally come into conflict with the rights of individuals, and he had had to pay very dearly for his real or imaginary faults. He did not complain. He was brought before a civil court, tried by a jury, found guilty, and mulcted in damages. He made no complaint in that regard; but had he been in Ireland, and had he come into conflict with the landlords, he would have been tried as a criminal, and instead of being subjected to a fine of £100 or £1,000, would have been liable to seven years penal servitude, with the additional punish-

    729
    ment of being twice or thrice publicly whipped in the market place.
    MR. ATKINSON: No, not now. That part of the Act has been repealed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwas greatly relieved to hear that that was so; it showed that some progress was being made even in Ireland. He was grateful for it. A man could now only be sentenced to seven years penal servitude, and could not be publicly whipped. What was the genesis of these proceedings? According to general report, before many months were over, the country would be electing a new House of Commons, and the Chief Secretary's Department with others would be under discussion. The great point the right hon. Gentleman had been making was that he had been able to administer Ireland under the ordinary
    law, and he wanted to be able to keep up the technically correct statement that the Coercion Act had not been enforced. The result was that he had recourse to this other ancient Coercion Act. But that was a policy which would not succeed——
    It being Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th February last, proceeded to put forthwith every Question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply.
    Question put. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 278.)

    AYES.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

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

    Lowles, John

    Arnold, Alfred

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Flower, Finest

    M'Killop, James

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

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

    Bethell, Commander

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    Bigwood, James

    Garfit, William

    Milbank, Sir Powlett Charles J.

    Bill, Charles

    Gedge, Sydney

    Monk, Charles James

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr

    Brassey, Albert

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Morrison, James A. (Wilts., S.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gull, Sir Cameron

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

    Butcher, John George

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir. Edw. H.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Heath, James

    Penn, John

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

    Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Houston, R. P.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Charrington, Spencer

    Howard, Joseph

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Purvis, Robert

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Pym, C. Guy

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Kenyon, James

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

    Kimber, Henry

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Laurie, Lieut. -General

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Rutherford, John

    Denny, Colonel

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

    Faber, George Denison

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Spencer, Ernest

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wyndham, George

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Strauss, Arthur

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Thornton Percy M.

    Wilson-Todd, W H. (Yorks.)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Tollemache, Henry James

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

    NOES.

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

    Edwards, Owen Morgan

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Asher, Alexander

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    Souttar, Robinson

    Birrell, Augustine

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hazell, Walter

    Strachey, Edward

    Brigg, John

    Hogan, James Francis

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jones William (Carnarvonshire

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Burt, Thomas

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Ure, Alexander

    Caldwell, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Cawley, Frederick

    M'Leod, John

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Maddison, Fred

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Crilly, Daniel

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Morton, Ed W.J. C. (Devonport)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Dewar, Arthur

    Moss, Samuel

    Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Resolutions Thirty-two to Thirty-four agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Thirty-fifth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £752,408, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary.'"
    The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 279.)

    AYES.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Coghill, Douglas H.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Arnold, Alfred

    Collings, Rt. Hon Jesse

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

    Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

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

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

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

    Cox, Erwin Edward Bainbridge

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Bethell, Commander

    Curzon, Viscount

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Denny, Colonel

    Heath, James

    Bigwood, James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hill, Arthur (Down West)

    Bill, Charles

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Houston, R. P.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Faber, George Denison

    Howard, Joseph

    Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Brassey, Albert

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

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Butcher, John George

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Jessell, Captain H. Merton

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    Kenyon, James

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Kimber, Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Flower, Ernest

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Garfit, William

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gedge, Sydney

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan'a

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Lowe, Francis William

    Penn, John

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Lowles, John

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Strauss, Arthur

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Purvis, Robert

    Thornton, Percy M.

    M'Killop, James

    Pym, C. Guy

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L

    Monk, Charles James

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Moore, William (Antrim, N).

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

    More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

    Morrison, James A.(Wilts, S.)

    Rutherford, John

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

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Wyndham, George

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

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Spencer, Ernest

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm (Cork, N.E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Asher, Alexander

    Hazell, Walter

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hogan, James Francis

    Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Jones, William (Carnarvon.)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Brigg, John

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Strachey, Edward

    Burt, Thomas

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Ure, Alexander

    Cawley, Frederick

    M'Leod, John

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Maddison, Fred.

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dewar, Arthur

    Morgan, W. Pritch. (Merthyr)

    Doogan, F. C.

    Morton, Edw.J.(J. (Devonport)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Edwards, Owen Morgan

    Moss, Samuel

    Mr. Crilly and Mr. Michael Austin.

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Resolutions Thirty-six to Forty-one agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Forty-second Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £2,300, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.'"
    The House divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 14. (Division List No. 280.)

    AYES.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Arnold, Alfred

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Brassey, Albert

    Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Brigg, John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Charrington, Spencer

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Burt, Thomas

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

    Butcher, John George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Bethell, Commander

    Caldwell, James

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Cooke, C.W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

    Bigwood, James

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Bill, Charles

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

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Birrell, Augustine

    Cawley, Frederick

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Denny, Colonel

    Kenyon, James

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Dewar, Arthur

    Kimber, Henry

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Faber, George Denison

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans.

    Rutherford, John

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. M.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lowe, Francis William

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lowles, John

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    Lucas-Shad well, William

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Macartney W. G. Ellison

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Flower, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

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

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    M'Killop, James

    Souttar, Robinson

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Maddison, Fred.

    Spencer, Ernest

    Garfit, William

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Strachey, Edward

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Strauss, Arthur

    Gray, Ernest, (West Ham)

    Monk, Charles James

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merth'r

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Morrison, Jas. A. (Wilts., S.)

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

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

    Hazell, Walter

    Moss, Samuel

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Heath, James

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

    Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-under-L.

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

    Houston, R. P.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

    Howard, Joseph

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Penn, John

    Wyndham, George

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.

    Purvis, Robert

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Pym, C. Guy

    NOES.

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

    Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hogan, James Francis

    Ure, Alexander

    Crilly, Daniel

    Jones, William (Carnarvon.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Leod, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Edwards, Owen Morgan

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Resolutions Forty-three to Forty-six agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Forty-seventh Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £275,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the
    Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901.'"
    The House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 281.)

    AYES.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

    Arnold, Alfred

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

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

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

    Bethell, Commander

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bigwood, James

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Bill, Charles

    Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Penn, John

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Brassey, Albert

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Purvis, Robert

    Butcher, John George

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pym, C. Guy

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Heath, James

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

    Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Houston, R. P.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Howard, Joseph

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

    Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

    Rutherford, John

    Charrington, Spencer

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Kenyon, James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kimber, Henry

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

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

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. D. T.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Spencer, Ernest

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'sea)

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Denny, Colonel

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

    Lowe, Francis William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowles, John

    Stint, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Faber, George Denison

    Lucas-Shad well, William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

    Macdona, John dimming

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

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

    Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

    M'Killop, James

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

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

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R(Bath

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Wyndham, George

    Flower, Ernest

    Monk, Charles James

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Morrison, J. A. (Wilts, S.)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Garfit, William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Gedge, Sydney

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

    NOES.

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

    Edwards, Owen Morgan

    Moss, Samuel

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Brigg, John

    Hazell, Walter

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Burt, Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Caldwell, James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Souttar, Robinson

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lloyd-George, David

    Steadman, William Charles

    Channing, Francis Allston

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Leod, John

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Maddison, Frei.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Dewar, Arthur

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Mr. Ure and Mr. M'Kenna

    Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY [17TH JULY] REPORT.
    Deferred Resolution [18th July], "That a sum, not exceeding £267,100, be granted
    738
    to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901," agreed to.

  SUPPLY [20TH JULY].
  Resolutions reported:—
  SUPPLY [20TH JULY].
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
      CLASS IV.
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £787,503 (including a Supplementary sum of £95,434), be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including a Grant in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
      CLASS III.
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,767, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."
  SUPPLY [27TH JULY].
  Resolutions reported:—
  SUPPLY [27TH JULY].

    ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1900–1901.
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Additional Expenditure, mainly due to the War in South Africa and to Affairs in China, in respect of the following Army Services, viz.—

    £

    Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

    3,250,000

    Vote 2. Medical Establishment: Pay, etc

    350,000

    Vote 5. Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

    500,000

    Vote 6. Transport and Remounts

    4,500,000

    Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

    850,000

    Vote 8. Clothing Establishments and Services

    100,000

    Vote 9. Warlike and other Stores

    500,000

    Vote 10. Works, etc.: Cost (including Stall for Engineer Services)

    1,060,000

    Vote 12. Miscellaneous Effective Services

    140,000

    Vote 14. Non - Effective Services, Officers

    250,000

    Total

    £11,500,000"

WAYS AND MEANS [2ND AUGUST].
Resolution reported:—
"That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, the sum of £95,234,796 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
"To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and one, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

MILITARY LANDS BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered.
A Clause (County or borough council may lease land and Volunteer corps may borrow on security of lease) (Mr. Wyndham); brought up, and read the first and second time, amended, and added.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Eleven of the clock till Monday next.

EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
Petition of Charles Botolph Joseph, Lord Mowbray, Lord Segrave, and Baron and Lord Stourton of Stourton in the county of Wilts, to Her Majesty to determine the abeyance of the dignity of Earl of Norfolk in his favour, and to summon him to Parliament as Earl of Norfolk; together with Her Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the Report of the Attorney General thereon thereunto annexed; Presented (by Command), read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.]

    MORLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.].
    Commons Amendment considered, and agreed to.

    KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
    Read a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

FRASER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL [H.L.]
  MUIRKIRK, MAUCHLINE, AND DALMELLINGTON RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL

    ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
    BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
    CHRISTCHURCH AND BOURNEMOUTH TRAMWAYS BILL.
    COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
    DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
    HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
    HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 1) BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL
    METROPOLIS GAS (PREPAYMENT METER) BILL, CHANGED FROM GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS, AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.

    NEWRY, KEADY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
    NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    PLYMOUTH, STONEHOUSE, AND DEVONPORT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
    SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
  SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.

    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
    TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
    TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Minute, dated 31st July, 1900, modifying Article 101 (g) of the Day School Code, 1900.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return, for the year ended 31st August, 1899, showing, under county boroughs and administrative counties, for each public elementary school inspected in England and Wales—

  1.The name and denomination of school;

  2.The number of scholars for whom accommodation was provided;

  3.The average number of scholars in attendance;

  4.The annual grant paid;

  5.Particulars of school income and expenditure.

  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Statistical Report of the health of the Navy, for the year 1899.
  STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
  Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on the strikes and lock-outs of 1899; with statistical tables.
  WAGES (STANDARD TIME RATES).
  Report on standard time rates of wages in the United Kingdom in 1900; with comparative tables.
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
  Abstract of the Returns made to the Board of Trade of shipping casualties which occurred on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, from 1st July, 1898, to 30th June, 1899; and shipping casualties which occurred to British vessels else where than on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the coasts, or in rivers or harbours, of British Possessions abroad, reported during the same period; with charts and appendices.
  Forty-fourth Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, for the year ended 31st March, 1900.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  1. General Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1899.
  2. Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st March, 1900, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.
  3. Similar Returns during the six; months ended 30th June, 1900.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2497. British Central Africa Protectorate.
  No. 2498. France (Society Islands).

  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (ENGLAND).
  Sixty-second Annual Report of the Registrar-General, for 1899.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account of deposits in Naval Savings Banks and the payments thereof, and of interest thereon, of all investments under the Naval Savings Banks Act, 1866, and the application of the interest or divi-

  573
  dends accruing in respect thereof and of the proceeds of any sale of any stocks, annuities, or securities during the financial year 1898–99.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting the proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1900.
  Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings and business under the Weights and Measures Acts.
  SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Fourteenth Annual Report of the Inspectors (for 1899).
  SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Thirty-ninth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries (for 1899).

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Return for the year ended 31st March, 1900, of the Army and Navy officers permitted under Rule 2 of the regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to hold civil employment of profit under public departments.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
  MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES RELIEF BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and suspended for the remainder of the session.
Ordered, That Bills have precedence over Notices this day.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-DOCUMENTS FOUND AT BLOEMFONTEIN AND PRETORIA SAID TO IMPLICATE M.P.'S.
THE Earl of CAMPERDOWN: Seeing the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, I beg to ask him a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether it is true, as has been stated in the newspapers, that certain letters and important documents implicating certain Members of Parliament and others have been discovered in Pretoria, and, if so, whether the documents will be laid upon the Table of the House.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the facts are as follows. When the Boer Governments fled from Bloemfontein and Pretoria, they left behind them in the archives a mass of private correspondence. This correspondence has been under examination by the British authorities on the spot, and by the last two mails Her Majesty's Government have received instalments of it, but we are informed that there is more to come. The portion that we have seen is all previous to the outbreak of the war, and consists chiefly of letters passing between British subjects at the Cape and persons in the two Republics, but includes copies of two letters purporting to have been written by an English Member of Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have also in their possession copies of letters and an extract of a letter purporting to have been written by two other Members of Parliament. Two of them were dated just before the outbreak of war; the other is a request, couched in a form which is certainly open to criticism, for information respecting the administration of martial law. The most interesting feature of the South African correspondence is the general admission of substantial grievances and of the necessity for reform. There are, however, some suggestions that President Kruger might make temporary concessions and wait for a reaction in this country. I am, of course, quite incompetent to give a legal opinion, but as far as the personal opinion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies is concerned, none of the letters ascribed to British subjects in this country are treasonable, but they are not proper letters to be written by British

575
subjects when Her Majesty's Government were engaged in difficult and important negotiations. We propose to send them in the first instance to the alleged writers and to ask if they desire to offer any explanation. Her Majesty's Government will await their reply before deciding on the question of publication.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
[Second Reading.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of VENONSHIRE): My Lords, this is a small measure relating to a considerable variety of subjects connected with education, which has been passed without amendment through the other House. It may properly be described as an omnibus Bill, containing as it does proposals for the amendment of the law in various matters which have been found to require amendment in the course of the administration of the numerous Education Acts. The first clause enables the average attendance for the purpose of the fee grant to be calculated in the same way as for the annual grant. The two calculations at present are made in different ways, and that has been found to result in considerable inconvenience. The second clause, as to which I shall have something to say in a moment, enables boards of guardians to contribute towards the support of public elementary schools to which children under their charge are sent. The third clause relieves an injustice under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, under which a parish which is in a school board district has to defray all its own expenses, and to contribute to the expenses of parishes in the same urban or rural district which have not got school boards. This clause has the concurrence of the Local Government Board. The first sub-section of Clause 4 is intended to make provision for the conveyance of children to and from industrial schools, and incidental to the sending out of children on licence. The Home Office and the Local Government Board have been consulted, and concur in the expediency of this clause. The second sub-section of the same clause enables local authorities to contribute towards the ultimate disposal of children sent to in-
576
dustrial schools at their instance. This provision is also inserted on the recommendation of the Home Office. The fifth clause provides that where two or more school boards combine for the establishment of a joint industrial school under a joint body of managers, the enactments relating to the audit of school board accounts shall apply as if the joint body of managers were a school board. That clause has been inserted on the recommendation of the Local Government Board and the Home Office. The first sub-section of Clause 6 allows local bye-laws to be made requiring school attendance up to the age of fourteen, instead of thirteen, as at present. The various Acts are extremely complicated, and to a certain extent conflicting, on this subject, and endless trouble is entailed both on the Education Department and on the local authorities by the inconsistencies of the present law. The second sub-section of the same clause raises from 5s. to £1 the maximum fine for a breach of the bye-law requiring attendance. It has been found that many parents prefer to pay a fine of 5s. rather than lose the value of the child's work. The third sub-section of the same clause provides that Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, shall have effect as if the sanction therein referred to were the sanction of the Board of Education instead of the sanction of Her Majesty in Council. Clause 7 enacts that in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Elementary Education Act, 1876 (which relates to the standard of previous due attendance at a certified efficient school), 350 shall be substituted for 250. This Bill, as I have said, has passed through the other House without amendment, although the Vice-President of the Council undertook that a small verbal Amendment, which I shall move, should be made in this House. The only clause which gave rise to any difference of opinion was that which enables guardians to contribute equitably to the support of a school to which children under their charge are sent. The case is this: it has long been the practice to send children who were formerly educated within the poorhouse itself, to the nearest elementary school, and it is considered by the local authorities, as well as by the educational authorities, that it is a great deal better that pauper children should be thus treated. Obviously, it is a hardship upon the ratepayers if the parish in which the

577
workhouse is situated is called upon to bear the cost of the education of the whole union, and this Bill enables the guardians to distribute the cost equitably over the whole union. It has also become of late to a very considerable extent the practice, instead of maintaining children in the workhouse, for guardians to send them out into country districts, either into homes or to lie boarded out. Their education also falls upon the parish from which they are sent, and in cases where these children are boarded out in large numbers it may constitute a heavy burden on the parish. It is for the purpose of meeting these cases that this clause is inserted. It is one of voluntary application, and the guardians are not bound to make this contribution unless satisfied as to its expediency. This clause is obviously a just one, but it was discovered, by, I think, some captious critics in the other House, that the principle of aiding Voluntary schools out of the rates might be involved, and some opposition was raised to the clause on that account. I can only repeat what was said by the Vice-President, that no such intention was ever dreamt of by the framers of this Bill. It was simply introduced as an act of justice, to achieve the objects I have already explained. I do not think that, upon consideration, your Lordships will hold that any dangerous principle is involved in this clause. I do not know whether any noble Lord present would wish to have an opportunity of discussing the Bill more fully, but as the session is drawing to a close I believe it would be convenient if the Bill could be put through all its stages to-night, because it will have to go back to the House of Commons for that House to agree to the Amendments which I shall move. But if any noble Lord should desire to further discuss the matter I will defer the Committee stage till Monday.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I cannot say that I regard the whole of this Bill with satisfaction. My objections apply principally to the second clause, and are in the direction indicated by the noble Duke. With regard to all the clauses after that, I have nothing to say. I believe them to be beneficial and
578
very useful clauses. If I had had more opportunity of making myself thoroughly acquainted with the first clause, to which, I understand, very considerable objection is raised, I should have had something to say with regard to it; but as I do not understand the precise mode in which the calculation of the average attendance will be made under this clause, I shall only observe that I am informed that it is expected it will bear hardly on many schools and diminish their efficiency. As to the second clause, I entirely sympathise with the desire to facilitate the sending of children from the workhouse to schools outside. I know, from my own experience, that this is most beneficial to the children, and I can conceive nothing more desirable than that this practice should be extended. But my objection is the same as that which the noble Duke said was raised by certain captious critics in the other House—it is that you are for the first time, so far as I know, going to authorise the application of the rates to the support of Voluntary schools. Not only that, they are to contribute towards "the expenses of providing, enlarging, or maintaining" these schools. I have no objection to their contributing to Voluntary schools where there are no other schools available, but I most strongly object to the principle that the rates of the whole union should be applied to the support of a Voluntary school without the board of guardians being directly represented on the management. I am perfectly certain the noble Duke will find that the feeling on that point is stronger than he supposes. I think it is only right that where schools are made use of by the whole union, the expense should not fall on the particular parish in which the workhouse happens to be situated; but you ought, in common justice, to give the board of guardians representation on the board of management of the school. You are going for the first time in the history of our education policy to allow the rates to be applied to the support and even the building of Voluntary schools, and I think you will find that you have thrown down an apple of discord, the effect of which can only be allayed by giving to boards of guardians a distinct share in the management of schools which receive money from the rates under this Bill. I will not throw any impediment in the way of the Government carrying the Bill through all its stages this evening; but I think

579
the Bill ought to have been brought on at a time of the session when it could have received proper consideration from the House.
On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended, Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, with reference to the observations of the noble Earl opposite on this clause, I can only say, as was pointed out in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill in the other House, that this power which is conferred upon boards of guardians is wholly optional. It is within their discretion to take such precautions as they may think necessary in order to prevent any misapplication of the funds. If, as the noble Earl suggests, the board of guardians ought to be represented upon the committee of management of the school to which money is contributed, they have ample power to make that a condition of their assistance. It seems scarcely necessary to insist upon their being represented on the committee of management if they are satisfied that that power is not requisite.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think it is a very reasonable thing, as I have already said, that the rates should be applied in this case, otherwise a very beneficent change in the management of workhouse children would be frequently obstructed. But I still think it ought not to be optional whether or not the guardians should be represented on the committee of management, because, in my opinion, that is a point of principle. I object on principle to public money being given out of the rates in support of denominational schools without the body contributing having a distinct voice in the management. If the noble Duke will forgive me for saying so, I do not think the explanation given by the Vice-President in any way removes that objection.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:—
Amendments moved—
"In Clause 6, line 16, after 'school' to insert' or of an attendance order made under the Elementary Education Act, 1876'; and in line 19, after '1870,' to insert ' and in Section 12 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876.'"—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to, and Bill reported, with Amendments, to the House.
Standing Committee negatived; Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COMPANIES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE expressed the opinion that the time allowed in Clause 7 for the filing with the registrar of the return of the allotments, etc., was too short. He therefore moved that the period be extended from fourteen days to one month.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 7, page 4, line 37, to leave out 'fourteen days' and insert ' one month.'"—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): If the noble Lord thinks this Amendment important I shall raise no objection to its insertion.
Amendment agreed to.
Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) (SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
  Read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.

NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHURCHILL: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to increase the reserve personnel of the Navy by maintaining a force to be called the Trained Reserve of Seamen and Marines, which shall be in addition to and distinct from (so far as the sources from which it is drawn are concerned) the present Royal Naval Reserve. This force is to consist of two classes—firstly, of petty officers and men of the seaman and stoker classes, and non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Marines, who have been awarded long service pensions. As regards men and boys already serving in Her Majesty's Navy, enrolment in this class will be at their option, but as regards those hereafter joining as seamen, stokers, or marines, the award of a long service pension will carry with it the obligation to join the said Reserve if so required, but no one shall have a claim to be admitted. The present Seamen Pensioner Reserve, numbering about 4,500, will be absorbed in this class. The men composing it are now liable to be called up in emergencies for service. It is expected that this class, with some new advantage as to clothing and drill, will gradually rise to 7,000 men. Secondly, the force will consist of a number, not exceeding 15,000, of petty officers and men of the seamen and stoker classes, non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Marines who have completed a twelve years engagement, and, at the discretion of the Admiralty, such men as have been allowed to leave the service with less than twelve years service. This class is designed to secure the seamen and marines who are not pensioned, but who have left active service. Enrolment in this class will be optional. The period
582
of engagement will be five years, and for each re-engagement, if physically fit and of good character, five years, or (if over fifty) to complete fifty-five years. Each man in this class will be entitled to claim his discharge at the end of each successive period of five years, provided he is not at the time required by Royal Proclamation to serve in the Fleet. Reserve men in this class will be liable up to the ago of fifty-five to serve three years in the Elect in case of emergency, or five years if the period should be extended by Proclamation. I have particulars of the emoluments, clothing, and pensions, which, if your Lordships wish it, I will go into in detail; but as they were explained at length and agreed to in another place, perhaps it will not be considered necessary that I should do so.
Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (JERSEY) BILL.

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bills read 3a, and passed.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
    [SECOND READING.].
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    The LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ABHOURNE): My Lords, this is a Bill to amend certain clauses of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and it is essentially a Bill of details. It has been found necessary to make certain Amendments in the Act to which I have referred with a view to facilitating its working. I am told that a noble Lord desires to move some Amendments on the Committee stage, which I had proposed to take to-night, but, under

    583
    the circumstances, I will put the Committee stage down for Monday, when I hope it will he convenient to your Lordships to take the remaining stages.
    Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the object of this Bill is merely to provide for the alteration of the Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Order, 1899. Under the Bill the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, by Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, annul or vary either generally, or, on the application of the council of any particular county, as respects that county, any provision in the Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Order, 1899.
Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order) and agreed to.

VOLUNTEERS BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
The SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, there is rather an important Amendment in the second clause of the Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that when the Bill passed through this House considerable objection was raised to a clause under which we took power to make arrangements with Volunteers by which they might be liable for service beyond the limits of the United Kingdom. On further consideration we have decided not to press that clause, and it has been emitted from the Bill.
Commons Amendments agreed to.

DEATH OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF SAXE-COBURG AND GOTHA.
Ordered, That the message of condolence agreed to yesterday be sent to Her Royal and Imperial Highness the Duchess, of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duchess of Edinburgh; and that the Lord Chancellor do communicate the said message to Her Majesty's Minister at Saxe-Coburg, with a request that he will attend the Duchess; of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha for the purpose of conveying it to Her Royal and Imperial Highness.

CONSTITUTION AND CHARACTER OF THE RESERVE FORCES.
*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, in calling attention to the Ministerial military measures I would ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments, while I give the grounds on which I have ventured to put this notice on the Paper. My noble friend the Secretary of State for War, in the course of a discussion, upon military matters the other day, stated that I disapproved of every measure which had not been initiated by myself. On that occasion I thought I made it clear that all I did was not to initiate anything, but to take up a measure brought in, but subsequently dropped, by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War for putting the machinery of the ballot, which is rusty and useless, in a proper workable state. What is the position of that measure now? The noble Marquess said—
"We have not changed our mind upon the question of the Militia Ballot Bill. We have laid a Bill on the Table in order that your Lordships might see the form it would take should legislation become necessary, but there never was any announcement of any intention with regard to that measure, and there never was, therefore, any abandonment of any intention."
The fact is, this Bill, which was essential for an emergency, has been laid, as it were, a corpse for dissection on your Lordships' Table. So far from not approving of any measure not introduced by myself, I heartily approve of much that my noble friend has done with reference to Army matters. I think the measures of the Government must be divided into two categories; in one category I place those measures, which I think everybody must approve of, and in the other I place the measures which nobody can approve of

585
except my noble friend who brought them in. I feel sure, for instance, that we all approve of what the Government have done to increase the Army. We all approve of the creation of the Irish Guards in recognition of the splendid valour displayed by the Irish troops in South Africa. Personally, I should like to see a regiment of Colonial Guards, and also a regiment of Indian Guards; for what could be grander and more patriotic than the action of the Colonials in the present war and the feeling which has been shown in India? My noble friend is endeavouring to increase the infantry, the cavalry, and the artillery. I hope he will be successful, and that he will get men, not boys, and efficient officers to command them. Further, we are to have improved guns and a Volunteer Reserve, and transport alike for Volunteers and Militia. I presume the noble Marquess means guns up to date and equal to any in any other part of the world, or, if possible, better. I should like to know if he means big guns of position, the want of which was greatly felt in this war. It is not to the credit of the War Office that we were without guns of this kind, especially when we find that the Boers and the Chinese have them, and that we had them forty years ago. I am glad my noble friend is paying attention to the Volunteer artillery, for the treatment of the Volunteer artillery has been almost incredible. Years ago there were field batteries of artillery, but during the time General Lindsay was at the War Office they were abolished—for what reason I cannot understand. I am glad my noble friend sees the importance of giving artillery to the Volunteers, and I trust he will be successful. Then, again, our cavalry went out to South Africa with a carbine sighted only to 1,000 yards, while the Boer rifles were sighted up to 3,000 yards. It is something very much like murder to send men out with weapons of this kind. There would be no difficulty in substituting the long rifle for the carbine. It will be necessary in future to substitute a telescope for the comparatively useless binocular. A deerstalker would think himself insane if he went out with a binocular, but that is what most of our officers have been doing in South Africa. A binocular magnifies twelve or twenty times, but my old deerstalking telescope of thirty years ago magnifies thirty-five times; and I contend that
586
many of the Boers who have not been discovered by binoculars would have been discovered by good scouting and the use of the telescope. Having referred to the measures of the Government which we must all approve of, and pointed out those matters which seem to me not unworthy of the attention of my noble friend, I now come to the category in which I have placed the proposals of my noble friend which, I think, nobody except the officials at the War Office can approve of. The other day I ventured to say that the noble Marquess was putting our military system into the smelting-pot. He shook his head; but in answer to another noble Lord—on 26th July I think it was—he told the House—and I would ask your Lordships to note this—that the idea was to render the whole of the Militia force liable in time of war for service beyond the United Kingdom. That is entirely changing the constitution of the Militia force. My noble friend also proposed that every Volunteer battalion should have a company for foreign service. I can conceive nothing more fatal to the Volunteer force than to establish in it two descriptions of men, who will be called respectively the "Go-and-fights" and the "Stay-at-homes." This plan, however, was so unpopular and so contrary to the spirit of the Volunteer force that, thanks to the good sense of the House of Commons, that part of the measure has, I believe, been dropped. As regards Volunteers being thus turned to a wrong purpose, my feeling was so strong that I resigned the honorary colonelcy of my regiment, as a protest against the action of the Government and against the Volunteer forces' existence serving as an excuse for the non-enforcement of our military system. While approving of their patriotic zeal and admiring the enthusiasm which had led to their volunteering to serve, I could not but hold that, instead of going out as English Volunteers, they ought to have been made to resign their position in the Volunteer force and then constitute themselves Volunteers for South Africa. I am inclined to think that that is not an irrational or unreasonable view to take on this question. What my noble friend is doing is really taking away the foundation upon which our military system rests. I think that system is a very perfect system. It consists of three parts—firstly, of the

587
Army, which is voluntarily enlisted, paid, and bound at any time to go away; secondly, of the Militia force, also voluntarily enlisted and paid, and liable to be called out for home defence, bat whose foreign service depends upon their volunteering for it; and, thirdly, of the Volunteers. The noble Marquess has stated that he would like to see the constitution of the Militia so changed as to render Militiamen liable to be sent anywhere the Government choose without having the choice of volunteering. I understand that my noble friend intends to do away with the Militia Reserve. I do not think it is sound policy, or even common sense, to get rid of what was thought to be a great gain militarily to the Army. It ought to be called the Militia Army Reserve. It was established by General Peel, and the idea then was that for every man who volunteered for the Militia Army Reserve another should be raised for the Militia. In that case Militia officers would have no cause to complain; they would have the regiments always full, and the nation would be the better for having a Militia Reserve. Happily, my noble friend cannot do away with the Militia Reserve without an Act of Parliament. I protest against all this tampering with our military system. It is, in fact, much more than tampering, because the Militia is the backbone of our military system. The step proposed is, therefore, a blow at the very foundation of that system. Why is this change proposed? Has the present system failed? Have you tried it? The answer is "No." And yet, without having tried it, you are going to revolutionise it, and take away its foundations. We all know why this is done. It is to avoid applying the existing law. I should like my noble friend to read an able article which appears in the current number of the United Service Magazine. It is written by Mr. T. Miller Maguire, M.A., LL.D., and is entitled "Compulsory Military Service in England. A Retrospect." In this article the writer shows that compulsory service, instead of being foreign to this nation, has been throughout the foundation of its military system. This is what he says—
"I do not propose to discuss the desirability of conscription just now, or its expediency, having regard to the peculiar condition of our world-wide Empire, or its economy as compared with voluntary enlistment. I
588
merely wish to prove by history and by references to writers of first antbority that obligatory military service is conformable to the 'best traditions of our race,' that it is in no way antagonistic to the genius of our Constitution; that it is as much part and parcel of our Constitution as trial by jury or the co-relation of representation and taxation."
In a further passage Dr. Maguire says—
"It is true obligatory service was avoided during the Crimean War, but at a shameful price and at the risk of war with other Powers as well as Russia, because of the cowardice of our Government and the ineptitude of our War Office."
How far these qualities are hereditary in the War Office I do not stop to consider. Dr. Maguire winds up his article by stating that—
"Until some answer to or explanation of the facts above given be forthcoming it will be quite misleading on the part of the opponents of obligatory military service to allege that it is contrary to our traditions or to the genius of British liberty."
We are promised another article by the; same writer, in which he will, he says "try to prove that obligatory military service would be a blessing to all classes of our people." Much is heard of military reorganisation, but I venture to think that no reorganisation is necessary. What is wanted is firm and effective administration. My noble friend the Prime Minister in January last said he did not think the British Constitution, as at present worked, was a good fighting machine; but I do not accept this opinion 'that the machine is to blame. I believe the British Constitution, properly worked, is a good fighting machine. Our forefathers found it effective during the great Napoleonic wars, and I hope the result of all these discussions will be a more effective administration, and that the Government will see the necessity of a little courage, a little patriotism, and a little trust in the people in the matter of home defence.
Moved to resolve, "That any tampering with the foundation of our existing military system by changing the constitution and character of the Reserve forces is to be deprecated."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, when I first saw the notice which the noble Earl put upon the Paper was, I confess, somewhat at a loss to know what particular subjects he in-

589
tended to bring before your Lordships this evening. He announced his intention of calling attention to the Ministerial military measures. That is a rather comprehensive formula, and would have included anything, from the composition of the field forces in South Africa to the brown holland hats lately issued to the troops at Aldershot. The noble Earl has, I think, made it clear that what he desired to criticise was not the temporary, or, as they are sometimes termed emergency, measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government, but the more permanent changes which have been either embodied in Bills introduced during the present session or sketched in speeches delivered by the representatives of the War Office as measures reserved for consideration, perhaps for favourable consideration, hereafter. I am bound to say that it gave me great pleasure to hear the noble Earl tell us that with some of our military proposals he was very much in accord. I understood him to say that he approved of our proposals to add permanently to the strength of the Army. He also spoke in terms of commendation of our intension to add to the artillery; and in speaking of artillery he asked me whether he might assume that it was our intention to; supply the artillery with guns of position. I very gladly answer that question in the affirmative. I think, with him, that one of the lessons of the present campaign is that a field force should have with it a certain number of guns heavier than ordinary field artillery. As I have said more than once in your Lordships' House, if we did not possess such an equipment at the outset of this war we certainly were not singular in that respect. There was no Continental army, I believe, which had as part of its equipment, for a mobile army in the field, heavy guns of the 4·7 type, which have done such good service during the present campaign. The noble Earl may take it from me that such guns will hereafter form part of our equipment. It is also the case that a large part of the Volunteer artillery, in which he expressed so warm an interest, will be armed with guns of that type, guns which will, I need not say, be guns of the most modern type. The noble Earl expressed a decided preference for the rifle over the carbine. That is a point upon which I feel that my opinion is worth very little, but he may rest perfectly assured that it is a point which will be carefully con-
590
sidered when we are in a position to put together and digest the experience that has been acquired during the war. I may say the same with regard to telescopes, but I am glad to be able to inform the noble Earl that at a very early stage in the present campaign we did send out a considerable supply of powerful telescopes to the troops in the field. I now come to what conceive to be the gist of the Noble Earl's motion—that part of it, namely, in which he asks this House to resolve that any tampering with the foundation of our existing military system is to be deprecated. The noble Earl told us what he meant when he spoke of tampering with the Reserve forces. He mentioned several points upon which he conceived that we had tampered both with the Volunteers and with the Militia. It is perfectly true, with regard to the Militia, that we have during the present war sent out of this country to South Africa and to the Mediterranean thirty-five battalions; and I must say it seems to me that, having these troops ready to our hand, knowing that we did went them outside of this country, and that there was no particular occasion for their services at home, we should have been greatly to blame had we not used such valuable material.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Hear, hear !
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As to the tampering with the Volunteer force which the noble Earl alleges to have taken place when we sent out a certain number of Volunteer companies to South Africa, all I can say to that is that I believe no Minister of War *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As to the tampering with the Volunteer force which the noble Earl alleges to have taken place when we sent out a certain number of Volunteer companies to South Africa, all I can say to that is that I believe no Minister of War and no Government would have ventured to refuse the offer made by the Volunteers of this country at the outset of this campaign. I will take upon myself to say that if the noble Earl himself, with all his long connection with the Volunteer force, with all the respect which the Volunteers feel for him, had gone into the City of London when the City Imperial Volunteers were welcomed by the Chief Magistrate of this city, and had told his audience that it was tampering with the constitution of the Volunteers to send any of them to South Africa, he would not have received a very respectful hearing. As to future tampering, which the noble Earl ap-

591
prehends, he has referred at considerable length to a proposal with regard to the Militia which I put before the House the other night as a sketch of a plan which had been submitted to me, and which I said seemed to me to be worthy of favourable consideration. I mentioned on that occasion that that proposal was supported by a great number of well-known Militia officers and by many very high authorities upon Army questions. Your Lordships will recollect what the proposal was. It was simply this: that we should allow the whole of the Militia force to accept the same liability for service beyond the limits of the United Kingdom as is now accepted by the Militia Reserve. I still think that that is a hopeful proposal, and we shall certainly examine it further during the corning autumn; but it is obviously a proposal for an organic change in the constitution of the Militia. It will need to be very carefully examined in detail by Her Majesty's Government, and it will require, as the noble Earl has told your Lordships, legislation to carry it into effect. I do venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is not very useful or practical to spend our time in discussing a Bill which has not yet been drafted, but which will, of course, in due time come before Parliament.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I hope this discussion will prevent its coming before Parliament.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I can give the noble Earl's hope no encouragement whatever. The only remaining case of tampering with the Auxiliary forces which he alleged was the Volunteers Bill, which has just come back to your Lordships from the House of Commons. In the few observations I made in asking your Lordships to agree with the Commons Amendments, I pointed out that the provision which the noble Earl so keenly objects to—the provision, I mean, under which it was proposed that we might accept offers from Volunteers to serve beyond the limits of the United Kingdom—has had to be abandoned in the face of somewhat formidable criticism and the approaching end of the session. Therefore, when the noble Earl condemns and criticises that instance of tampering he is slaying the slain. That provision is no longer alive, and the only clause the Volunteer Bill
592
now contains under which an additional liability can be imposed upon the Volunteer force is the clause under which we take power to agree with a certain number of Volunteers to do duty in fortresses and other important defensive positions in time of emergency without the necessity for a previous Proclamation. I submit that that use of the Volunteer force is entirely in accordance with the principle which the noble Karl has so often advocated—namely, that the Volunteer force is intended for the defence of these islands. The remainder of the noble Earl's observations were, I think, mainly directed to the now rather well-worn question of the Militia Ballot. That question has been fully and fairly discussed in the House. The noble Earl moved the Militia Ballot Bill which was rejected by a considerable majority, and I think he is hardly justified in calling upon us to reopen the discussion on that point. I am glad to find that the noble Earl does not entirely condemn the military measures which we have adopted. As for those which are yet to be considered, I must insist that we have a right to elaborate them without any interference from such a resolution as the one the noble Earl has asked your Lordships to agree to.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I shall not, of course, press the motion. My object has been gained by the speech of my noble friend, who admits that, as far as he is now advised, he favours the digging up of the foundations of our military system. All I wish to do is to enter my protest against the digging up of the foundations of a system which has served us so well, and which, by a little courage on the part of those in office, would still serve us as in the past.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE POSITION OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY,who had the following notice on the Paper:—"To move for a Return of the Commanders-in-Chief during the nineteenth century who, being Members of this House, have refrained from expressing herein their opinions on military subjects,"—said: My Lords, I propose with regard to my motions

593
to take a similar course to that pursued by the noble Earl who has preceded me. I do not propose to press for the Return I ask for, because I do not think it would lead to any fruitful result or to any great expenditure on the part of the Stationery Office. But I had no other means of calling attention to what occurred last Friday when I took part—being, after all, a Member of this House—in a manner which I thought to be not objectionable in a discussion raised by my noble friend. I was answered at once with great spirit, and, perhaps, with some little acerbity, by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State. The answer was quite conclusive in many ways; but it did not happen to deal with the points which I had raised in my speech. That is not an unusual occurrence in debate, but it is disadvantageous when you have no right of reply. My two points were these: firsts that the condition of foreign feeling in respect to this country was not satisfactory, and in that respect I only re-echoed a speech which had been delivered with much greater force and much more chiaroscuro, if I may so express it, by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister some weeks before. It is, I know, not a popular task to call attention in this country to the state of feeling which exists with regard to us abroad. But I do not think that that ought to actuate a Member of your Lordships' House when he conceives it to be his duty to do so. I confess I was somewhat surprised to be told that I had no right to do so. The noble Marquess said that I had no right whatever to address your Lordships on "questions of this kind without suggesting an alternative plan to that which he had proposed. I had never even mentioned his plan. He said, "The noble Lord is always coming down and criticising my plans." I only once criticised his plans. He might have remembered it because he gave on last Friday the same answer that he gave me then—that I had no right to speak on these questions without suggesting an alternative plan. My Lords, I am bound to say, with all goodwill and deference to my noble friend—who is one of the oldest friends that I have in this House— that I do not propose to lie snubbed in the discharge of what I believe to lie a public duty by remarks of that kind. Is it really suggested, will not say by any Minister of the Crown, but by any sane
594
man, that Members of this House are not to be allowed to discuss propositions laid before them by the Government, unless they can suggest an alternative scheme of their own? Is it really to be laid down as an axiom by Her Majesty's Government that a private peer, who is connected with no party, who has no military advisers, is bound, whenever he takes part in a debate which is remotely connected with military affairs, to produce an alternative plan? I have heard a great many extraordinary axioms in the few visits that I have paid to this House this year. I heard the noble Marquess at the head of the Government propound the theory that we had no right to discuss the Address unless we were prepared to move an Amendment to it.
The PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): When?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: On the night of the Address.* I think that was the axiom. He cheered a remark of very much the same tendency in the debate on Friday last. But I will drop that point. I only say that, of all the constitutional maxims which have ever been uttered in this House, that of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State is by far the most extraordinary. But I pass to the point I dealt with last Friday. I pointed out that we were in a grave condition as regards the feeling entertained for us abroad. I said that that required the greatest vigilance of our Ministers. Of course I was told, as I think we are usually told, to reassure those who are not quite satisfied with our means of home defence, that we had 200,000 odd men 7,000 miles away. It is one of the strangest arguments for reassuring those anxious for home defence that ever I heard of; but I proceeded to urge that a few words from an expert would be a great comfort and consolation to the people of this country. In my judgment the opinion of exports in support of the Government would be very reassuring at this juncture. In the first place, the utterances of the Government have not been reassuring. The speech of the
*The reference is probably to the remarks of Lord Salisbury reported in The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. lxxviii., at page 33.—[ED.]

595
noble Marquess the Prime Minister, uttered to the Primrose League, in which he painted in the darkest colours the position of this country in regard to foreign opinion, and the still more startling moral which he drew from it— that we should rely for our defence on the use of the rifle by the Primrose League—was one which by no means gave inspiration and courage to any faltering spirit in this country. I will give another reason why expert opinion would be of great value in a discussion of this kind. As far as I can judge of it from what is printed in the public press and in the monthly magazines, which supply us with so much copious and useful information, the great balance of expert opinion—I will not say the unanimity of expert opinion, but the overwhelming balance—is hostile to the proposals and the military policy of Her Majesty's Government. In those circumstances, with the greatest possible confidence in the noble Marquess, and being well aware of the arduous task which he has had to undertake, I did not think it presumptuous to call attention to the fact that we had had no expert testimony in support of the military policy of the Government. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War may say that his ipse dixit, his declaration, should be amply sufficient, that those who hear him hear embodied in his words all the expert opinion which lurks at the War Office. Well, perhaps five years ago I might have said that that was a sound constitutional doctrine. But we had a startling object lesson five years ago about the War Office and expert opinion. There was a question of the adequacy of our stores of ammunition under the late Government. The then Secretary of State for War, who is now the respected Leader of the Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons, gave a positive assurance to the House that the stores of ammunition were ample and that they satisfied his military experts. On the doctrine of the noble Marquess, the Opposition of that day were bound to be satisfied with that assurance; but as the debate proceeded, and as it was clear that the Opposition were not satisfied with the assurance, the opinion of his experts was, so to speak, squeezed out of my right hon. friend. His experts all alleged, for good reason shown, that the stock of the particular kind of ammu-
596
nition in question was amply sufficient for all necessary purposes; and yet, in spite of the assurances of the then Secretary of State for War, backed up by all the expert opinion at the War Office, the Opposition, which now sits on the benches opposite, and which is represented by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, came to a vote and turned out the Government of the day on that precise issue. I do not complain of that process—it may have been salutary—but I cannot conceive now that the party that took up that position in a juncture so critical, and which did not scruple to oust the Government of the day on a question as to which the Secretary for War had uttered his opinion as Secretary of State for War, and had fortified it by experts—I cannot admit that the party which then took that line are justified now in refusing to give us any expert opinion in support of their judgment. Then I proceeded to say that under these circumstances it was pleasant to remember that we had in the House of Lords a distinguished officer, the Commander-in-Chief, whom we should be glad to see oftener amongst us, from whom a word on the subject of the military policy of the Government would be more reassuring than a great many of the civilian statements which we have heard. For that I was taken to task with some causticity by the noble Marquess and with more benignity by my noble friend behind me (the Earl of Kimberley). I was told that my object was to attempt to degrade the Commander-in-Chief into a politician. Nothing was more remote from my idea, but I confess that, if my wish wore to be carried out, I should have more officers non-political and less officers political than is now the case. So far from wishing to make the Commander-in-Chief political, I would gladly see the War Office non-political, and I would gladly see the Admiralty non-political, and if it were possible—I know none of these things are possible, I am only speaking of a Utopia—I would have the Foreign Office also non-political. Therefore, nothing was further from my idea than to say that the Commander-in-Chief should be forced down to a sort of Under Secretary in order to support, at all hazards, the measures proposed by the chief of the War Office. But I do say this, that we have a right to expect that the opinion of the War Office shall be fortified to

597
some extent by expert opinion—not expert opinion lurking in the red box of the Secretary for War, but expert opinion so far as is consistent with the public service, and which can be produced to reassure the minds of men. The noble Marquess seems to think that there is prevalent in this country a blind and venerating confidence in the methods and the policy of the War Office. Now I am bound to say that, if any good is to be done, he must disabuse himself of that idea. There is not that blind and unreasoning confidence in the War Office. There is, I think, some unreasoning criticism. I think the noble Marquess himself has been subjected to much more criticism than is fair for much of what has transpired during this war, and I for one have never criticised him in that spirit or with that desire. But to go to the other extreme and constitute a sort of civilian Pope at the War Office, who shall utter his dictum with a position of infallibility, is, I confess, a much greater transition of things than this country is prepared to adopt. We are told that the Commander-in-Chief is not to come down to this House. We have always piqued ourselves, in our after-dinner speeches in replying to the toast of the House of Lords, on the variety and richness of the elements of which it is composed. We have pointed to the Commander-in-Chief himself, if I mistake not, as one of those rich and composite elements. We have, indeed, endeavoured to strengthen that military element. I remember the noble Marquess proposed a great Bill for the reform of this House. As far as I recollect, that abortive measure included an accession to the strength of this House of a number of military and naval experts, who were to come and give their opinions on matters of this kind. The Bill was lost, and with it we lost the military and naval experts who were to be brought in; but I fail to see that that is any reason for not utilising those that we have. I am not prepared to draw any rash conclusion from the silence of the Commander-in-Chief. I am not prepared to say that he is not in cordial agreement with the Secretary of State for War in all that the Secretary of State has done. I have no information on that point, and if I had any information I certainly should not use it in a public assembly of this kind. But, at the same time, there is the posi-
598
tion of the Secretary of State himself, and I think it would be greatly fortified; if he had the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief to support him when he develops his military policy. If the Commander-in-Chief is unable to attend, I for one, can only regret it. I venture to think that our experience in this House is hostile to the idea that the Commander-in-Chief is not to attend its sittings. I do not suppose many of your Lordships are able to go back beyond the time of the late Commander-in-Chief, the Duke of Cambridge, but that illustrious Duke was never chary of giving his opinion on military matters, and we listened to it with that respect which was due to his great service and unrivalled experience. I should be sorry if I saw the Commander-in-Chief become a political officer, but I should be sorry in a minor degree if it was to be held by this House, or by any Government in this House, that the-Commander-in-Chief, the highest authority in military matters, should be entirely excluded from debates in this. House.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot quite accept the description given by the noble Earl of the discussion which took place in your Lordships' House the other evening, The noble Earl has stated that I said he' had no right to speak on a military question unless he had an alternative policy of his own to propose. Now it is not in my power nor in that of anyone else to deny the right enjoyed by every Member of this House of speaking when he pleases to do so. What actually happened was this: there had been a considerable number of military debates during the present session, and I had received from many of your Lordships useful suggestions in regard to the military measures which we had announced; but the noble Earl has made few visits, to the House, and he has taken no part in these discussions. He has, however, come down at least on two occasions, and on those occasions he has expressed himself in the gloomiest and most despondent terms with regard to our state of military preparedness.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I did not express any opinion about our military preparation, but about the hostility of foreign countries.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But on neither of these occasions has he ever told your Lordships what there was in our proposals that he objected to, nor has he added any suggestion of his own. If he will look at the report of what I said he will find that I expressed my belief that the noble Earl might at least have given us some indication as to the defects of what we ourselves proposed, and some indication of the measures that he himself would have adopted. I do not think that that was unreasonable. The noble Earl has spoken of himself with great humility as a private Member of this House, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that he cannot claim to address this House without the great responsibility which attaches to the high official position he has filled. I therefore do think I was justified in complaining of him as I did for having made what I think I called rather infructuous criticisms of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl is evidently under the impression that our military proposals are the result of the labours of the civilian members of the War Office, and that they have no support from our military experts. That is a fallacy which seems to have received considerable currency at the present time. It is almost superfluous for me to tell the House that since this war began there has not been a week, there has scarcely been a day, in which the civilian and military members of the War Office have not met at the same table in order to discuss from time to time the arrangements and the military measures that were being taken. I can speak with full knowledge of the discussions which have taken place, and I can say that the measures which have been adopted by Her Majesty's Government and explained to Parliament are regarded both by the soldiers and civilians at the War Office as the best and most effective measures which could have been taken in the time and with the material at our disposal. As to the position of the Commander-in-Chief in this House, the noble Earl is quite right in saying that the Return for which he asks could be supplied without very much difficulty. I am able to give the noble Earl this information. During the present century there have been six commanders-in-chief, predecessors of Lord Wolseley, of whom five have been members of this
600
House, and of whom two have been Princes of the Royal Family; and I believe I am right in saying that none of those who were Members of this House have refrained from making statements in this House and taking part in its debates. The frequency with which they took part in debates varied considerably. The Duke of York spoke only once on Indian military affairs. The Duke of Wellington spoke occasionally. I find that Lord Hill made two complimentary speeches with regard to the conduct of military operations, and also explained why it was that a sentry had stopped the Lord Chancellor's carriage. It is curious the way in which history repeats itself. I believe the noble Earl on the Woolsack was subjected two years ago to a somewhat similar indignity.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No. It was the Lord Chief Justice.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But the noble and learned Lord was content to send a private remonstrance to the War Office rather than call upon the Commander-in-Chief to explain the incident in your Lordships' House. Lord Hardinge spoke occasionally, and the Duke of Cambridge was in the habit of frequently taking part in our debates. But I cannot find in the speeches delivered by those noble and illustrious peers any trace of any such practice age that which I understand the noble Earl desires—namely, that the Commander-in-Chief should be brought down here for the purpose of corroborating the statements made by the representative of the War Office on this bench. That was the proposal to which I took exception, and that was the proposal to which, speaking at much greater length and with more fully reasoned argument, the noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench also took such exception. But I am bound to say that even if the noble Earl had been able to point to cases in which commanders-in-chief in the first part of the present century, or even during the time the illustrious Duke held office, had been in the habit of coming down to support the representative of the War Office in this House, I should not have been by any means convinced by that reason that the practice is a sound one in present circumstances. The noble Earl must know that the position of the Duke of Cambridge as Commander-in-

601
Chief was entirely different from that of the noble and gallant Viscount who now fills the office. The Duke of Cambridge held the office without limit of time. As a matter' of fact, he held the chief command of the Army for nearly forty years. Under the present arrangement, which was virtually settled while the noble Earl was still in power, the chief command of the Army is held for a term of five years only, and that, to my mind, makes a considerable difference in what I may call the political position of the Commander-in-Chief. But besides that, the Duke of Cambridge, as a member of the Royal Family, was dissociated from party politics in a sense that no one who is not a Prince of the Blood is ever likely to be. We know that members of the Royal Family, are able to take a useful and busy part in public affairs without in any way involving themselves in party ties or connections. Therefore, I put aside altogether any precedent to be drawn from the case of the Duke of Cambridge. I remain very strongly of the opinion that I ventured to express the other evening—that it is most undesirable that we should do anything, not, as the noble Earl said, to degrade the Commander-in-Chief into a political partisan, but, as I said, to turn the Commander-in-Chief into something like a political partisan. I believe that any arrangement under which it would 'come to be understood that the Government case was not established until the Minister was able to produce something ' like a certificate from the Commander-in-Chief would be bad in the interest of the Commander-in-Chief himself, injurious to the interests of the Army, and be at variance with the recognised principles of our Constitution. As the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite truly said the other evening, if this change were made in the case of the War Office we should also have to make it with regard to the Admiralty. I judge from the speech of the noble Earl who introduced the subject that he would like to carry matters a good deal further still. But I object to any innovation of that kind, in the first place, for the sake of the gallant officers themselves who would be affected by it. We have not all of us that happy fluency of expression which distinguishes the noble Earl below the gangway, and I know many admirable soldiers and sailors, eminently fitted for high official employment, who would be quite
602
incapable of coming to Parliament and assisting in the presentation of a Ministerial defence. I should be sorry to add to their responsibilities, which are already sufficiently numerous, the duty of from time to time taking up the cudgels in Parliament on behalf of the Government of the day. If that were done, I am afraid what would happen would be something of this kind. The gallant officer would either perform his task skilfully or he would not. If he performed it unskilfully he would greatly damage the Government case and damage it unfairly. If, on the other hand, he became a skilful advocate, I am very much afraid it would lead him to put on one side for the time the duties properly belonging to him in his office. We should find the Commander-in-Chief, instead of working out the military problem of the moment, devoting his time to the preparation of eloquent speeches for delivery in this House. I am also inclined to think that any practice of the sort would tend to 'weaken the position of the Commander-in-Chief in the eyes of the Army. I think it is most important that the Commander-in-Chief, as well as the corresponding official at the Admiralty, should have the; full confidence of the service to which he belongs. In my experience the soldier who is also a politician is apt not to be very much trusted in the Army. Whether that is right or wrong I do not say, but it is so undoubtedly. You would have this kind of thing said: "General So-and-So owes his appointment, or the extension of his term of office, or his promotion, not I to his military abilities, but to the fact that he hold the fort so well for the Government in some hard-fought military debate." I think, therefore, the practice would be a bad thing for the Army itself. And last, but certainly not least, I agree with what was said by the noble Earl opposite as to the constitutional aspect of the matter. I take it that the constitutional position is this—the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State alone, is responsible to Parliament, and the Commander-in-Chief is responsible to the Secretary of State as his principal military adviser under the Order in Council. So long as those two officers continue to hold the positions assigned to them, so long it must be assumed that each of them is satisfied with the arrangements made by the Department with which he is connected. Of course

603
these are minor matters in which there must be give and take; but if the Secretary of State is not properly supported by his colleagues, or the Commander-in-Chief is not property supported by the Government of the day, he ought not to remain in a position in which ho is prevented from adequately discharging his duty. These are the views I ventured to express to the House the other evening, and I still adhere to them. While, no doubt, my noble and gallant friend the Commander-in-Chief has a perfect right to appear in this House and address your Lordships when it may please him to do so, I confess I think he is well advised in sticking to his desk in the War Office, and leaving the Parliamentary representatives of the Department to say what is to be said on its behalf in Parliament.
*THE EARL OF NORTHBBOOK: My Lords, the excuse that I have to offer to your Lordships for making a few remarks on this question is that I happen to have been connected with both the Army and the Navy for a longer period than probably any other Member of your Lordships' House. The question raised by Lord Rosebery is one of very great importance—namely, how far it is desirable that the opinion of experts should be called for upon any subject which is being dealt with by Parliament. I have no hesitation in giving an answer. It must rest with the Government of the day to decide whether or not the opinion of experts in the War Office or the Admiralty should be presented to Parliament. It would be impossible, in my opinion, to carry on those great Departments if there was any obligation on the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War to produce, at call, the opinions of their naval and military advisers. But on the question whether it is advisable that the Commander-in-Chief, being a Member of this House, should address your Lordships on military questions, I am not prepared to agree altogether with the view just expressed by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. When I had the honour of being Under Secretary for War, and having the conduct of Army affairs in your Lordships' House, I found upon many occasions that the opinions expressed by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, who was then Field
604
Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, were of great value and assistance in the discussion of military matters; and when the noble Marquess tells your Lordships that the discussion of military questions in either House of Parliament by officers serving either in the War Office or in the Admiralty is at variance with the recognised principles of the Constitution I venture entirely to differ from him. Lord Cardwell, when he was Secretary of State for War, thought it was of so great importance that he should have the assistance of experts in the House of Commons that he created the office of Surveyor General of Ordnance and engaged the services of Sir Henry Storks, who for some time filled that position. In both Houses of Parliament Lords of the Admiralty have sat and taken part constantly in Naval debates. The first recollect was the late Lord Fitzhardinge, who not infrequently assisted in the Naval debates in the House of Commons as Sir Maurice Berkeley. There are others. Sir John Hay was in the House of Commons; so was Lord John Hay; Lord Clarence Paget was Secretary to the Admiralty; Lord Charles Beresford was in the House of Commons as a Lord of the Admiralty; and Lords Clanwilliam and Alcester sat in your Lordships' House when they were Members of the Board of Admiralty. Therefore I cannot agree that it is contrary to the constitution that naval and military officers should take part in debates.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When I used the constitutional argument, I was referring to what I understood was suggested by the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery)—namely, that when a Ministerial statement was made it should be corroborated by expert evidence, and that until it was so corroborated it was not satisfactory to the House.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I should be glad if the noble Marquess would tell me when and where I said any such thing.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl suggested that it was desirable that the Commander-in-Chief should be present to give the weight of his assurance and support to the schemes that were being suggested, and he complained that there, was not a single word

605
from the noble Viscount the Commander-in-Chief assuring the House that we were amply prepared for all contingencies. I was referring to the suggestion that the Commander-in-Chief should be called to corroborate the Minister.
*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am very glad to have heard the explanation of the noble Marquess on that particular point, but still he undoubtedly argued that it was undesirable that the Commander-in-Chief, as a Member of your Lordships' House, should take part in debates. I do not agree with that opinion for the reasons I have already stated; and I differ from the noble Marquess when ho says that if the Commander-in-Chief took part in the debates in your Lordships' House it would weaken his authority in the Army. I am satisfied that the reputation and authority in the Army of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge was in no way diminished by the part he took in the debates of this House. It is very difficult to say whether the balance of advantage is on one side or the other. Of course, neither your Lordships nor the House of Commons could upon an important question receive any real answer excepting from the Ministers responsible for both services. What I say, shortly, is that if there happens to be in this House a military officer of distinction holding the office of Commander-in-Chief I see no disadvantage; in his taking part in the debates. But the important question is whether or not the views of the military and naval officers who are serving at the War Office and the Admiralty have sufficient weight in the decisions that are come to by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War. Speaking of the Admiralty, I have no hesitation in saying that the opinions of the Naval members of the Board of Admiralty have sufficient weight in the decision of all Naval matters. Your Lordships know that the power of the Crown over the Navy is delegated by Commission to the Board of Admiralty, and the Naval members of that Board have a constitutional position in respect to the management of the affairs of the Navy. The Naval member's of the Board of Admiralty have not for a great many years been selected in regard to their political opinions. I remember during the Crimean War the Senior Naval Lord
606
of the Admiralty was Sir Richard Dundas, a member of a well-known Tory family, although a Liberal Administration was in office; and the present First Lord of the Admiralty, when he assumed office, took over the whole of the Board that had been serving with Lord Spencer in the preceding government. The opinions of Naval members of the Board of Admiralty have great weight in the decisions upon all Naval affairs. They may be considered as a kind of Cabinet, with the First Lord of the Admiralty as Prime Minister. During the ten years that I was connected with the Admiralty in different capacities I can recollect no instance of anything but the most cordial co-operation between the Naval members of the Board and the First Lord. All questions of importance were discussed, and the Naval Lords had the power of expressing their opinion. I well remember the programme of shipbuilding I had to propose to your Lordships in 1884. We met on eight or nine different days to discuss that programme. But I happen to know there have been differences of opinion. I know that on one occasion the Naval members of the Board, not being satisfied with the condition of affair's in respect to the strength of the Fleet, wrote and signed a Memorial or Memorandum which was given to the then First Lord of the Admiralty and submitted to the Cabinet; and I believe the Naval Lords obtained the addition they desired. I think I have shown to your Lordships that in the case of the Admiralty expert opinion is amply represented, both in the office itself and also, if necessary, before the Cabinet. As regards the Army, I am not so satisfied that the condition of things is equally satisfactory, and for this reason—that in the Memorandum which was issued by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in respect to the duties of the principal officers of the Department, I notice that the consultation of the different military experts in the War Office by the Secretary of State depends entirely upon the will and pleasure of the Secretary of State. There is, no doubt, a provision for a Council, but there are no regular meetings of that Council, so far as I am aware. Certainly the Commander-in-Chief and the other military officers at the War Office have no such constitutional position in respect to the Army as the Naval Lords of the Admiralty have in

607
respect to the Navy. I think the whole question is one which one Cabinet might very properly consider in the coming recess. There was one word used by the noble Marquess to which I should like to refer. He indicated, I think, that if a military or naval officer differed from the measures taken by the Parliamentary head of the Department he had the option of resigning. I am sorry that the noble Marquess made that remark. I hold that the position of these officers is, in respect to resignation, one of great delicacy and difficulty. If it is to be understood that whenever they differ on any matter of importance from the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War they ought to resign, they will be placed in a very invidious position. It is possible, of course, that a case of vital importance may arise in which the military or naval officer may consider it to be his duty to resign rather than be a party to measures of which he does not approve; but that it should be considered in any case except a very extraordinary case to be the duty of one of these officers to resign his appointment if he does not agree with the measures which are carried out by the Government of the day is a doctrine with which I can in no way concur.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have no intention of prolonging this discussion; I merely wish to make the precise intention of the allusion I made the other night perfectly clear. There is, I think, a little confusion in the matter. I did not for a moment intend to lay it down as a proposition that no Commander-in-Chief or other military expert, if he happens to be a Member of this House, should ever speak in the House on military matters, but I was directing my remarks entirely to the particular case before the House at the time. The matter originated in a statement by the noble Marquess with reference to a speech he made to the members of the Primrose League. There arose the question whether we were in a state of sufficient military preparation, looking to the conditions of our relations with foreign Powers. I do not mean by that the foreign Governments. It did seem to me that so grave a matter as that was one simply and solely for the Cabinet and the Government. They were bound to get the best advice, and they are the
608
people to tell the nation on their responsibility that they are satisfied with the state of the defence of the country. I do not think that we ought to look at any outside opinion on that matter. That would tend, in my opinion, somewhat to weaken the responsibility of the Government, and in a matter of that kind it seems to me that it is of the highest importance that the responsibility should rest where alone it really belongs. We must suppose the Government have consulted the highest naval and military authorities. Just conceive what would be the effect if, when the First Lord of the Admiralty makes his annual statement as to the position of our Fleet and its position relatively to the fleets of other nations, the naval expert were to come afterwards and say, "I am very glad to be able to confirm what the First Lord has said on that subject." And suppose the naval expert does not come and say that. In that case it would be impossible that the inference should not be drawn that there was some difference between the exports and the Government. It seems to me that, in a matter of great importance like that, it is not at all advisable that you should invite that opinion. With regard to matters of detail, where very useful information can be given by one who is himself a member of the service, I do not suppose anyone would feel any jealousy, but I hold still the opinion, with regard to the subject we had under discussion the other night, that it is not desirable that we should have recourse to the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief and of naval experts to reassure us as to the position in which we are.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as we have launched upon a constitutional discussion, it is inevitable, first, that we should all of us differ in opinion, and, secondly, I am afraid it is inevitable that we should incur the risk of some obscurity in the expression of our language on a subject so abstruse. But I am bound to say that I do not think the last two speakers have adequately represented what Lord Rosebery said. I understood Lord Rosebery's contention to be that the nation would be very much more satisfied if Lord Wolseley were to stand up in his place and say that he approved of the plans of Lord Lansdowne. Now it is obvious that if Lord Wolseley could be called upon to do that,

609
he must do it with the admission that ho was entitled, if ho liked, to say he did not approve of the plans of Lord Lansdowne. I do not see how you possibly could have a perpetually assenting Commander-in-Chief an orator in this House. Lord Northbrook was able to produce from his long experience a most fascinating picture of perpetual agreement, but I doubt whether this is the experience of all heads of Departments either in the Admiralty or in the War Office, and still more do I doubt whether it is possible that a disagreement, when it arises, can be pushed in every case to the ratio ultima of resignation. No Government could be worked for a year on that principle; somebody must give way. I do not mean to say that it must always be the export who gives way, because his chiefs may think it wiser to give way, but if there is a clash of hostile opinions no one can doubt that it must be the expert who gives way. If that is the case, it would be very imprudent to introduce the Commander-in-Chief in support, because if he is entitled to tell us when he does agree he must inevitably be entitled to tell us when ho does not. I think there is a great deal of force in what Lord Rosobery said, but it was force of an abstract speculative kind. In that Utopia which he contemplates I suppose the head of the Army would always be a distinguished military man, and therefore not a partisan, and the head of the Navy also would be a distinguished naval man. It is the fact, I believe, that in every foreign country except our own the Ministry of War is in the hands of a military man, and not a partisan. But that is because the Constitution of this country differs essentially from every other Constitution. In this country the Government is conducted and the Departments are ruled by Parliament. It cannot be so unless those who are appointed are persons approved of by Parliament, and who have authority in Parliament; it cannot be so if you substitute for the ordinary Ministers of a Government distinguished exports either in naval or military science. I am not saying for a moment what in that speculative Utopia to which Lord Rosebery referred would be the best plan. I do not entirely disagree with the opinion which he parenthetically added that in many respects it might be much better if the Foreign Secretary was never a partisan; but those
610
things are quite inconsistent with party Government in the Houses of Parliament.
LORD ROSEBERY: Hear, hear !
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Utopia may come, but until it comes we must be satisfied with such provisions as our ancestors have handed down, and make the best of them, and those provisions absolutely refuse to allow the military head or the naval head of the professions to come here and criticise their chiefs.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wish only to say one word with reference to this discussion, which I think has been most interesting and fruitful. I would once more demur to what the Secretary of State for War has said; he appears to be incapable of understanding a plain proposition when it is laid down. He represents me as saying one thing, and the noble Marquess the Prime Minister represents me as saying another.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quoted you.
*THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: You quoted one sentence from a series of sentences; that is most misleading.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will read the whole of it——
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think at this hour that would be most fatiguing, but I am willing to enter into correspondence with the noble Marquess—such correspondence as the penny post will allow—as to what my expressions mean. What I did say is this, and I am willing to say it till the day of doom, that in time of a great national crisis, when our armies have met with perpetual reverses —[Cries of "Oh !"]—well, constant reverses—[Renewed cries of "Oh !" and A NOBLE LORD: "Occasional."]—occasional, then; I am always being advised by the Treasury Bench—at a time of grave national danger—and I suppose that no one who passed the months of January and February in this country will easily forget those months—at such a time, I said, I thought it would have been reassuring in the past if we had had a statement from the noble Lord the Commander-

611
in-Chief giving us confidence as regards our resources and as regards the military measures that the Government were introducing. The noble Marquess changes that into a statement which I expressly barred—that I wish to convert the Commander-in-Chief into an Under Secretary, who should come down and applaud the measures of his chief, like a chorus. That is not my meaning, but I do maintain that occasionally, in moments of crisis, it might not be inexpedient if the noble Viscount, who is a Member of this House, took part in the debates of this House to give us his guidance and experience. Of course we have been accustomed to that during the long career in office of the late Commander-in-Chief. The noble Marquess dexterously got rid of the late Commander-in-Chief by saying that he was a Prince of the Blood, and, therefore, was in a position so exceptional that he could form no precedent. But for forty-four years we have no other precedent to quote, and, therefore, if he gets rid of the Duke of Cambridge by that summary and convenient process, it is difficult to argue with him. As regards my Utopia, I agree with the noble Marquess that that is outside the regions of the debate, but I am afraid I disagree with him in thinking that it is ever likely to be realised.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I ever said it was.

INDIA—BENGAL UNCOVENANTED SERVICE PENSION FUND.
*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the proposed reduction of interest on the capital of the Bengal Uncovenanted Service Pension Fund; and to move for copies of any letters from the Government of India to the Secretary of State for India on the subject in 1896 and 1899. I am exceedingly sorry to have to trouble your Lordships at this late period of the session, but, in my opinion, a grievous hardship has been inflicted by the Secretary of State for India upon a most deserving class of men—namely, the Uncovenanted servants of the Government of India. They are the men who do the best portion of the hardest work in the offices in India. They receive, most of them, very low salaries, and when they retire they are granted very moderate pensions. About sixty years ago a fund
612
was formed for the widows and children of the Uncovenanted servants in Bengal. The Government encouraged it in every way, and assistance was given from the State to the extent of 6 per cent, interest on the capital. There were 1,700 subscribers to the fund, and everything went on smoothly till a year or so ago. The rates which the subscribers paid were considerably in excess of the actuarial death rate, and that, coupled with the 6 per cent, interest, enabled the fund to dispose of a considerable surplus year by year. That surplus was wisely used for the purpose of making an abatement on the sums paid by the subscribers, so that these deserving men, who had subscribed for many years for pensions for their widows or money for their children, were able, on leaving the service at the expiration of their term, to go home and live upon their small pensions, with a very small annual sum to pay to the fund, and very often none at all. This had been going on for many years, but in February last the Secretary of State decided to reduce the rate of interest from 6 per cent, to 4 per cent. He accompanied that resolution with an announcement that even 4 per cent, was not to be relied upon, and that the rate of interest might be still further reduced. Although fully warned beforehand what the result to the fund would be, he issued this order, and in his despatch there is not a single word of sympathy for the effect of the order upon the unfortunate subscribers to the fund. The reduction of 4 per cent. will, in the opinion of two of the best accountants of the day, prevent the fund from meeting its liabilities. In point of fact, it will kill the fund. Those who managed it took the course, in order to struggle on, of altering their rules so that the unfortunate men who have already subscribed the whole of the money required under the regulations of the fund to provide pensions for their widows are now called upon to pay the full amount of the subscription which they paid when they began their subscriptions. Now, my Lords, how is this working? because it is just as well to see what the actual cases are. I know of three cases. The first case is a man who for many years subscribed to the fund for three daughters. His subscription, according to the rules of the fund, had ceased. He is eighty years of age, and he is now called upon to pay the original rate of subscrip-

613
tion, which it is impossible for him to do, and his daughters when he dies will be left without support. Another case is a man who subscribed to the fund for twenty-seven years. He has got a small pension. His subscription ceased three years ago, and now he is called upon to pay £30 a year, his original rate of subscription, and that unfortunate man will not be able to live in the small house he is now living in. Another case is a man who subscribed for many years for his wife, two sons, and three daughters. About three years ago his subscription ceased according to the laws of the fund. He has now been called upon to pay £75 a year, which it is altogether beyond his power to do. In short, this is the case of the fund now as contained in a letter written on the 10th July by the secretary—
"Subscribers have in a large number of instances withdrawn their children from the fund. Subscribers, when called upon to pay subscriptions at the full fixed rates, have expressed their inability to do so. Applications for admission to the fund have almost entirely ceased."
So that your Lordships see that in point of fact the action of the Secretary of State has killed this fund, which was established sixty years ago, and put into conditions of very great hardship indeed the unfortunate members of the fund, who have subscribed for so many years. The whole correspondence has been published. I looked at the Papers to see if I could find what reason the Secretary of State could have, or what justification he could produce, for the action which he has taken, and I tell your Lordships that I was never more pained in my life than when I read that despatch of the Secretary of State, addressed to the Government of India. Will your Lordships believe that, in order to justify his action, the Secretary of State dug up an old letter, written by the Court of Directors about the year 1840, in which they said then that they could not guarantee continuing the 6 per cent, rate of interest on the fund? That is the justification of the Secretary of State for his action on the present occasion. He takes no notice of what has happened since that time. In the year 1849 the Court of Directors published a despatch, in which they praised the management of the fund, and declared that 6 per cent. interest on the capital should be paid, without one single word of reservation.
614
Was not that quite enough to get rid of the reservation of 1840? Worse than; that, in the years 1877 to 1883, when the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) was Secretary of State for India, when Lord Cranbrook was Secretary of State for India, when the Duke of Devonshire was Secretary of State for India, when my noble friend behind me (Lord Kimberley) was Secretary of State for India, a very long correspondence took place, and the Government of India said that it was necessary to put distinctly on record the exact position of the Government with respect to the fund, and the interest that they were to pay upon the fund, and how far it extended, and they declared that the interest to be paid upon the fund was what I described to your Lordships just now—namely, 6 per cent, on the capital representing the net liabilities of the fund, with a small reserve. I should have thought that if ever there was a contract between a Government and a body of that kind, this was a contract between the Secretary of State in Council and the Government of India and this fund. Now, my Lords, what have the Government of India done in this matter? How far have they committed themselves to this rate of interest? I hold that they have committed themselves to this rate of interest in a manner which it is impossible f r them to escape, because they have actually issued orders in some parts of India that no Uncovenanted servant shall be promoted who does not belong to this fund, or some other fund of the same kind; and they have actually given orders that if an Uncovenanted servant leaves the service, without going through the whole course and taking a pension, to take another appointment, he is to refund to the Government certain sums of money in order to get the advantage of the rate of interest. My Lords, that is the condition of things now; and during the whole of that correspondence, from the year 1877 to the year 1883, in no one single Paper that has been printed in the collection which I have read since the assumption of the government of India by the Crown, is there one single word of warning to those who subscribed to this fund that there was a liability that the rate of interest should be reduced. If that liability had been openly stated, and people who were about to subscribe to

615
the fund had been warned of that, is it likely that anyone would have subscribed to the fund at all? because the main reason of people subscribing to the fund was the assistance they got from the Government by the exceptional rate of interest. The contrast between the manner in which these unfortunate Uncovenanted servants have been treated, and that in which other funds in which the Covenanted servants were interested have been treated, is rather painful, but I will not dwell upon it. I will only say, in conclusion, that I trust the noble Earl representing the India Office will be able to assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State for India is prepared to reconsider this matter, and that he will take into consideration the equity of the case, the hardship of the case, and that he will restore the fund to the position in which it stood before his unfortunate despatch; or do what was done in the case of the Covenanted Service Fund— let the Government take the whole fund over, let them deal with all those who have at present a claim upon the fund on certain fair conditions, and then let the Uncovenanted servants start a new fund for themselves. So far, my Lords, for my question to the noble Earl, to which I hope he will be able to give a satisfactory reply. Now as regards the despatches. The Secretary of State has acted in this case contrary to the opinion of the Government of India. That is admitted in one of his own dispatches— that the Government of India when Lord Elgin was Viceroy said, as I think any person who looked at the matter from an equitable point of view would have said, that after this favour had been shown for fifty-seven years to this fund, the Government of India hoped that the Secretary of State would not interfere with the rate of interest. I should like to see that despatch produced, and also I should like to see the despatch which Lord Curzon's Government has written upon the same subject. I do not know what was in that despatch, because it is not mentioned, but I cannot see the slightest reason why these despatches should not be produced. This is a matter of business. The Government of India are properly the protectors of the Uncovenanted servants in India. They have a right to express their opinion to the Secretary of State if they think that these men are being treated unfairly, and I think I am justified
616
in asking, that those despatches from the Government of India should be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House.
Moved, "That an humble Address be-presented to Her Majesty for copies of any letters from the Government of India: to the Secretary of State for India on the subject of the proposed reduction of interest on the capital of the Bengal Uncovenanted Service Pension Fund in 1896.and 1899.—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE OF INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble Earl, at the commencement of his remarks, apologised to your Lordships for bringing this matter before your notice at so late an hour of the evening, and at so late a period of the session. I have no complaint whatever to make against the noble Earl on either of those heads, but I must confess that I should have been glad if it had been possible for him to have given a little longer notice of his intention to bring the matter under the notice of the House, and for this reason: The Secretary of State for India has for some time past, been in communication with the Government of India with, a, view to the reconsideration of the matter to which the noble Earl has referred. A telegram was addressed to the Viceroy on the 22nd. June, and we were informed that the managers of the fund—who, your Lordships will understand, are the official representatives of the beneficiaries under the fund—were awaiting a report from, their actuary, and were meanwhile preparing a case to lay before the Government of India. It was the intention of the Secretary of State to wait until that had been presented to the Government of India, to have learned the views of the Government of India upon it, and then to have formed his own conclusions thereon. But since the noble Earl has placed this notice on the Paper a communication has been made by two members of the Committee of the Uncovenanted Servants' Pension Fund in this country, and they have produced the actuary's report to which the noble Earl refers, and upon that report we learn that in their opinion—and I have no reason to doubt that their opinion is a sound and correct one—on the 6 per cent. basis the widows' branch of the fund would show a surplus of R.1,913,000, while on the 4 per

617
cent. basis, to which it is proposed to reduce it, it would show a deficiency of R.355,763. (Of course, I am presuming in both cases that the contributions remain as they are at present.) In the children's branch the surplus on the 6 per cent, basis would be R.686,000, while on the 4 per cent, basis it would show a deficiency of R. 1,040,000. Well, no doubt that is a very startling position as a result of the change in the percentage, and the Secretary of State is the last person in the world to withhold his sympathy from those who have done such work for the Empire in India as the members of the Uncovenanted Service, both in Bengal and in Bombay; and I cordially agree with the remarks that have fallen from the noble Earl as to the value of the services they have rendered. I am not able at present to say exactly what will be the ultimate decision of the Secretary of State, because he has to consult, first, the Government of India, and, secondly, his own Council in this country; but I may say this: that, while he certainly would adhere to the right to fix the rate of interest at whatever he thought was the proper rate for the time being, he would not wish to inflict a hardship upon individuals or upon the whole service by reducing unduly the rate of interest to be paid in cases of those who have already contributed towards the fund. But I think the noble Earl will agree with me that it is entirely within not only the right of the Secretary of State, but also the justice and the equity of those concerned, that so far as those who have not yet entered into the service— that is, the new entrants—he should fix the rate at whatever may appear to him to be right for the time being. That is the view which the Secretary of State takes; and when the Papers come home, and after careful consideration of the matter, the Secretary of State hopes he may see his way to leave those who are at present subscribers to the fund in the position in which they now are, and so avoid inflicting any hardship. I am sorry that I cannot comply with the request of the noble Earl to lay the Papers on the Table of the House. If he, next session, will repeat that motion, I may be able to give him a more favourable reply, but for the moment the matter is very far from being in a condition that I may call settled, and it would be, I think, unwise to lay the
618
Papers in an incomplete condition upon the Table of your Lordships' House, and I would prefer when the matter is finally settled that the noble Earl should renew his application, when I hope to lie able to comply with it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Certainly after hearing my noble friend's statement I have been very glad indeed to hear the answer of the Under Secretary of State. I would merely press this point: that I hope no reliance will be placed upon some technical power which may be shown to have existed long ago, and not to have been used for a very long period of years, of reducing the rate of interest. I hope that no such technicality will be put in force against those who entered the fund at the time when it was determined to revise the rate of interest, for the very good reason that they had no notice of it. We must look in these matters, and we always have looked in those matters, not to the technical rights of the Government, but to treating with generosity those who are employed under it. I am sure that in India our servants, both Covenanted and Uncovenanted, deserve the greatest sympathy and generous treatment. It has always been the custom not to look merely at technical right, but to see that they do not suffer any serious injury of any kind at the hands of the Government. As regards those who joined the fund later, of course it is clearly absolutely within the power of the Secretary of State to fix whatever he thinks equitable and fair, and there will be complete notice to all who then enter the fund. I merely wished to say this, because I sympathise very much with what my noble friend has said, and. I feel sure that it will not be the intention of the India authorities to treat in any way harshly people whose case deserves equitable and favourable consideration.
*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: After the very satisfactory answer that I have received from the Under Secretary of State, I shall not press for the Papers in this matter, because I think it is better that they should be presented,, if at all, when the matter is settled. I understand the noble Earl to have informed your Lordships that the Secretary of State is prepared to take measures to provide that the present subscribers to

619
the fund should not suffer by the alteration in the rate of interest. I quite agree with him that as regards those who have not joined the fund now it is perfectly open to the Secretary of State to make any arrangements he pleases in respect of the future.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Earl of Denbigh.) (No. 229.)

PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Commons Amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven of the clock, to Monday next, Twelve of the clock.