Sitting of 6 August 1900

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills.(See page 741.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  KINGSCOURT, READY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, and agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to—
  Hemel Hempstead Corporation (Water) Bill [Lords],
  Morley Corporation Bill [Lords],
  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords], without amendment.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Gourock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Shoreditch and Ulverston; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Fenwick; and Dunrossness; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from New Wortley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account [presented 3rd August] to be printed. [No. 343.]
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (EXPENSES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 28th April, 1899; Mr. D. A. Thomas]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 344.]
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION, OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 2nd March; Mr. Talbot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 345.]
  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Return presented, relative thereto Address 8th March; Mr. Wharton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. No. 346.]
  BENEFICES ACT, 1898.
  Return presented, relative thereto Address 25th May; Lord Hugh Cecil]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 347.]
  PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 5th July; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 348.]
  PRISON OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 6th July; Mr. John Hutton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 349.]
  DIOCESAN REGISTRIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 2nd August; Mr. H. D. Greene]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 350.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF PRESTON).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Preston, in the county of Lancaster, redividing the Borough into convenient Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Emily de Charante Lester, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter Saint Mary's Home, Wantage, Berkshire [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented, of Return for the month of December, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANKING, RAILWAY, AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report for the half-year ended 30th June, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1900, with appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Tables showing the extent in statute acres, the produce of crops for the year 1900, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of General Abstracts showing the acreage under crops, also the number and description of live stock in each County and Province for 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) (MIGRATORY LABOURERS).
  Copy presented, of Report and Tables relating to Migratory Agricultural Labourers for the year 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Banking and Railway Statistics (Ireland) to 31st December, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TEA AND COFFEE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 351.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Reports from University Colleges participating in the Grant of £25,000 made by Parliament for "University Colleges in Great Britain" (1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education, with Appendices, 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing (1) Schools in receipt of Parliamentary Grants; (2) Grants paid to School Boards under Section 97, Elementary Education Act, 1870; and (3) School Board Accounts and List of Loans for the year 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report for the year 1900 by Sir Henry Craik, K.C.B., on the Inspection of Higher Class Schools in Scotland, and the Examination for Leaving Certificates [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE.
  Copy presented, of the Forty-sixth Report of the Postmaster General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Flint).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 5th May, 1897; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 352.]
  LUNATICS AND EPILEPTICS IN WORKHOUSES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of (a) Lunatics, and (b) Epileptics, not classed as insane, who were inmates of workhouses in England and Wales on the 1st day of January, 1900, showing the numbers admitted from each administrative county and county borough."—(Mr. John Hutton.)

  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF BRECKNOCK).
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Brecknock, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not re-
  766
  corded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1862–5 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 91 (6), of Session 1869)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF CARDIGAN.)
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Cardigan, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1862–5 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 91 (7), of Session 1869)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF PEMBROKE).
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Pembroke, particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1862–5 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 91 (10), of Session 1869)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF RADNOR).
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Radnor, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1862–5 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 91 (11), of Session 1869)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE.
  Return ordered, "of the Correspondence between the Board of Education and the Farnworth School Attendance Authority relating to the Employment of certain Children of School Age who had been granted certificates of partial exemption by the said authority."—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)

  POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACT (SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA).
  Copy ordered, "of Contract, dated 1st. June, 1900, entered into with the Pacific

  767
  Steam Navigation Company for the conveyance of Mails between Liverpool and South and Central America, and the Falkland Islands, and of the Treassury Minute thereon."—(Mr. Hunbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 353.]

  VACCINATION.
  Return ordered, "of Statement showing in respect of each Poor Law Union in England and Wales (1) the number of Certificates of Conscientious Objection under Section 2 of the Vaccination Act, 1898, received by the Vaccination Officers, which were dated between the 1st day of January and the 31st day of March, the 1st day of April and the 30th day of June, the 1st day of July and the 30th day of September, and the 1st day of October and the 31st day of December respectively in the year 1899; and (2) the number of Certificates of Successful Primary Vaccination received by the Vaccination Officers during the periods between the 1st day of January and the 30th day of June, and the 1st day of July and the 31st day of December respectively in the years 1898 and 1899."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 354.]

QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— THE ADVANCE ON PEKING.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give the House any information as to the advance of the British and other relief forces towards Peking, and also with regard to the present position of the Ministers and other Europeans in Peking.
  The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): No, Sir. Communications both from the Legations and from the relief force have come to us by runner and by despatch-boat, and we have no information from either later than that we have given to the House.

  AUSTRALASIAN CONTINGENTS FOR CHINA.
  *Sir J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the strength and composition of the Colonial and Naval force despatched to China by the Australian colonies; whether the officers and men of this force will form part of the navy on the China station and be under the Admiral; whether they will be available for service afloat and ashore as he may determine; and under what Discipline Act will this force serve; and whether the cost of this colonial naval force will be borne by the Imperial or the Colonial Exchequer; and, if by the Imperial Exchequer, whether it will be a naval charge.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The Colonial and Naval force about to be despatched to China by the Australasian colonies consists of 200 officers and men from Victoria, 300 officers and men from New South Wales, and the "Protector" gunboat with a crew of 112 officers and men from South Australia. This force will be under the Naval Discipline Act, and available for service afloat or ashore as the admiral may determine. The cost of the Colonial force will be partly borne by the Imperial and partly by the Colonial Exchequers.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: What is to be done with the men who go out without any ships?
  Mr. GOSCHEN: They are to be sent out by transport, and will be available wherever wanted.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TRANSVAAL GOVERNMENT'S PREPARATIONS FOR WAR.
  Mr. BRIGG (Yorkshire, W.R.,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it has come to his knowledge that papers showing that the Transvaal Government had previous to the Jameson raid been preparing for war were taken away to Europe by the Boer delegates, rumour of such a disposition of papers being current in South Africa.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. Chamberlain, Birmingham, W.): I have not heard the

  769
  rumours, and I have no the subject.

  SETTLEMENT OF AUSTRALIANS AND CANADIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  Mr. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether directions have been, or will be, given that no undue inducements should be held out to the members of the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand contingents to settle in South Africa at the close of the war, having regard to the urgent need of young men for the development of these colonies, and the general understanding that the contingents would return to their respective colonies at the cessation of hostilities.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not contemplated by Her Majesty's Government to treat members of colonial contingents differently from members of other corps. I have already informed the House that an Inter-Departmental Committee has been formed to consider the subject, but as it is evident that full inquiry on the spot will also be necessary, I propose to appoint a small Committee, consisting of Mr. Arnold-Forster, M.P., chairman, and two local members, who will examine into the subject in South Africa and report fully upon it to Her Majesty's Government.

  PRIVATIONS OF GENERAL RUNDLE'S FORCE.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what there was in the nature of the country or in the operations I involved to necessitate the sufferings and privations to which the British troops under General Bundle have been exposed; who was responsible for the victualling of these troops, and what was the base from which they were supplied; whether quantities of provisions were stacked at country sidings while these troops were starving; and whether stops have now been taken to supply these troops with adequate food and other necessaries.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.) (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No official information has reached the War Office in regard to the reported privations of General Rundle's force. Such details of the campaign are not
  770
  reported to the War Office, and the Secretary of State does not propose to make any inquiries of Lord Roberts on the subject.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: I bog to give notice that, in consequence of the lion. Gentleman's reply, I will, on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, call attention to this matter, which is exciting the most painful interest in the public mind.

  BOER PRISONERS AT PRETORIA— ATTEMPT TO BLOW UP MAGAZINE.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any information has yet reached the War Office of the sentences of death alleged to have been passed on Captain Tossel and Mr. Solomon Gillingham, of Pretoria; if so, what was the charge, by what tribunal were they tried, what was the sentence passed, what date was fixed for its execution, and has it been carried into effect yet, or when is it intended to be carried into effect.
  Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. Wyndham): No, Sir.

  CIVIL MEDICAL OFFICERS IN SOUTH AFRICA—ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that civil medical officers in South Africa do not get colonial allowance, though such allowance is allowed to every other person now serving in the British Army in South Africa; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs.
  Mr. J. POWELL—WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The civil medical practitioners engaged for service in South Africa are paid according to the special terms for which they engaged—namely, pay at £1 a day, field allowance at 3s. 6d. a day, servant's allowance, Government horse with forage, and field rations while in the field, with a gratuity of two months pay at the expiration of their contract. They accordingly receive higher emoluments than many of the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. The Secretary of State for War sees no reason for making any addition to their emoluments.

  CODE CABLEGRAMS TO SOUTH AFRICA.
  Mr. LAFONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that code messages can be sent to South Africa via Delagoa Bay, whether it will now be possible to allow mercantile messages to be sent in code to Natal, the code employed being previously submitted and sanctioned by the competent authorities.
  Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for; Mr. WYNDHAM): The question of relaxing the existing regulations in Cape Colony and Natal, which have been in force since November, 1899, is engaging the attention of the Government and of the civil and military authorities in those colonies, and it is hoped that an announcement may shortly be made on the subject.

  THE KERRY MILITIA.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kerry I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that complaints by letter and otherwise have been recently made by members of the Kerry Militia, now stationed at Gosport; and whether he will inquire into the alleged ill-treatment and punishment inflicted on men of the Kerry Militia owing to their unwillingness to volunteer for service in South Africa.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Secretary of State for War is not aware of any complaint by letter or otherwise from any men of the Kerry Militia. As all soldiers are by regulation given facilities for making their complaints through the authorised channels, there is no necessity for any inquiry.

  PRIVATE GILLEN, ROYAL IRISH RIFLES.
  Mr. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Private R. Gillen, No. 3216, Royal Irish Rifles, who was, on the completion of six years service, discharged home with good character from the Finner Camp, Ballyshannon, on Monday, the 23rd instant, was denied the full annual bounty, and can he explain for what reason; and why
  772
  Gillen's daily pay was stopped from the Wednesday previous to his discharge; and, as this man is the solo support of his mother and sister, will the stoppages be made good to him.
  Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The man was paid up to the 22nd July, the date of expiration of his service. Authority has been given for the payment of bounty which was withheld at the time of his discharge because the amount he was to receive was uncertain.

  PURCHASE OF CANNON ABROAD.
  Mr. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether ho will state the number of cannon purchased in Germany during the present year, and of what type.
  Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I have already stated that it is against the public interest to give information at the present time as regards purchases of war material.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Not even from Birmingham?

  VOLUNTEERS IN THE G.P.O.—CAMPING ARRANGEMENTS.
  Mr. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post-master General, whether the Postal authorities have issued an order stating that it will be impossible to allow leave of absence to any of the men of the 24th Middlesex Rifle Volunteer Corps., who are working in the Inland Section or the E.G. District Office, to attend camp; whether men belonging to other corps have been refused leave in a similar manner; and whether, having regard to the recent appeal made by the Government to employers, urging them to use every means in their power to give leave to their workmen for the purpose of attendance at the various camps of instruction, he will in some way provide for these men to have leave in order that they may make themselves efficient in drill and other duties as Volunteers.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General regrets

  773
  that it has not been found possible to allow leave of absence to all the men of the 24th Middlesex Rifle Volunteer Corps engaged in the Inland branch of the Circulation Office and in the East Central District who have applied to attend camps, and it has also been found necessary to refuse a certain number of men belonging to other corps. This is partly due to the great pressure of work in the offices in question at the present time owing to the recent removal to Mount Pleasant, to the number of men who have been withdrawn for service at the front, and to the impossibility of obtaining a sufficient number of substitutes without imposing an undue strain on those members of the staff who are not Volunteers and imperilling the proper performance of their duties. It may be added that there are at the present moment between 300 and 400 men belonging to the 24th Middlesex in camp, and a further number will be similarly engaged next week.

  SUBMARINE VESSELS.
  Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the amount of the estimated expenditure on submarine vessels (in addition to those already built) for which provision is made in the latest Navy Estimates of the United States and France respectively.
  Mr. GOSCHEN: During the financial year beginning 1st July, 1900, the Secretary of the United States has been authorised to contract for five submarine boats at a price not exceeding 170,000 dollars each. During the financial year beginning 1st January, 1900, the French Estimates provide £140,292 for submarine boats.

  † The following is the Reuter's telegram referred to:—" WELLINGTON, July 21.—Mr. Seddon, Premier and Minister of Defence, to-day submitted a scheme to the New Zealand Parliament having reference to the harbour defences, to the defence forces, and to the permanent Imperial Reserves. The scheme provides for an Imperial Reserve force of 10,000 good riders and shots in New Zealand for Imperial or Colonial service within defined limits. Mr. Seddon is of opinion that the scheme is feasible, and that if it commends itself to Australia, and if a number should there be enrolled relative to the number and population of New Zealand, a Reserve of 50,000 could be formed ready for Imperial service at any time. The scheme provides for one month's drill annually. The total maintenance of 50,000 men would cost £1,000,000, and if drill is not required the cost would be £500,000 a year, to be borne by the Colonial and Imperial Governments on a population or other equitable basis, the first cost of equipment and munitions to be found by the Imperial Government, the colonies paying 3 per cent, thereon. In calculating the interest, the difference between the rate at which the colony could raise the money and the rate at which it could lie obtained by the Imperial authorities would form a sinking fund to pay off the principal within a reasonable time. Mr. Seddon recommends that the naval branch of the Reserves and Volunteers should be drilled on the cruisers of the Australasian squadron

  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Do the French figures represent the total expenditure or only the estimates for the year?
  Mr. GOSCHEN: The estimates for the year.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether my right hon. friend will say whether the Board of Admiralty are dealing with this matter?
  Mr. GOSCHEN: I do not think the question does arise out of my answer.

  DEFENCE OF THE EMPIRE—NEW ZEALAND PROPOSALS.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has official cognizance of the fact that the Premier of Now Zealand has submitted to the Parliament of that colony proposals for providing naval and military forces for the general service of the Empire in war; whether they involve joint responsibility and expenditure by the Imperial Government and the Governments of Australasian colonies; what is the general outline of such proposals; and what has been the action, if any, taken by the Parliament of New Zealand upon them.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received through the Governor of New Zealand a memorandum by his Premier on the subject to which the hon. Member refers. It is in the nature of suggestions for discussion by a conference of Imperial and Colonial representatives, and not of a definite scheme. It is too long to summarise in answer to a question, but a fairly accurate summary will be found in a Reuter's message which appeared in the morning papers of 23rd July.† I have

  775
  no information as to what action, if any, has been taken upon it by the New Zealand Parliament.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH— DATE OF PROCLAMATION.
  Mr. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to indicate the date on which the Royal Proclamation calling the Australian Commonwealth into being will be issued.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Until the result of the referendum in Western Australia has been dealt with by the Parliament of the colony I am not in a position to advise Her Majesty as to the date for the issue of the Proclamation.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA'S DECISION.
  Mr. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any official information as to the result of the Federal referendum in Western Australia.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a telegram from the Acting Governor stating that the referendum in Western Australia has resulted in the adoption of the Commonwealth Bill by a large majority.

  CONGO—BRITISH—BELGIAN BOUNDARIES —ALLEGED BELGIAN OUTRAGES.
  *Sir CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the statements made by Mr. Grogan in a recent paper read to the Royal Geographical Society, in which he says that in the valley above the Albert Nyanza the natives had been raided and shot

  when in New Zealand ports, and also that arrangements should be made for converting certain New Zealand liners into cruisers, the equipment and munitions to be placed in a depot within the colony. He contends that owing to the altered conditions and recent events it is necessary that the Australasian squadron should be strengthened. In New Zealand alone 30,000 magazine rifles are required. Five years ago the Volunteers in the colony numbered 4,000; now they are over 11,000, and Mr. Seddon estimates that atthe end of the year they will be increased to 18,000. Mr. Seddon suggests that a military conference to-be attended by the defence Ministers and commanders of the forces of Australasia, and also by military experts from the Imperial Army, should be held. If Lord Roberts visits the colonies he will be invited to preside. Otherwise, the Imperial authorities should be asked to send a general who has taken part in the South African campaign to preside at such a, conference. The New Zealand Parliament has referred the scheme to a select committee. The outline of the scheme was sent confidentially to the Secretary of State, through the Governor, early in May. The full scheme has now been forwarded to the Secretary of State and to the Premiers of Australia and Canada.

  down, and women and cattle carried off, by the Congo State soldiers, and had fled to the marshes, and that, as the territory is British, the charge against the Belgians is a serious one; and that three distinct tribes had told the same story, some of which were sixty miles from others; whether the Foreign Office had previous information as to failure to respect the British frontier on the part of the Congo State; and whether inquiry will be made.
  Mr. BRODRICK: Information as to violations of the frontier has reached the Foreign Office. The facts are admitted by the State authorities, who have lost no time in expressing their regret, and will punish the offenders severely if the offence is brought home to them.

  DOUBTFUL MARRIAGES AT DALTON-LE-DALE, SUNDERLAND.
  Mr. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that anxiety exists in the parish of Dalton-le-Dale, Sunderland, in consequence of the doubtful legality of 334 marriages which have been solemnised in the old parish church between the years 1876 and 1879,. whereas they should have taken place in the new church; whether he is aware that correspondence upon the subject has been going on for seven years, and that, though the Registrar General describes the difficulty as resulting from the illegal action of the Vicar of Dalton-le-Dale, and that, though the persons married under these circumstances are blameless, the-local ecclesiastical authorities have-demanded a guarantee of the costs of rectifying the blunder, and thereby indignation has been aroused; and whether he will take steps, by bringing a Bill into Parliament, or otherwise, to place the-legality of these marriages beyond dispute

  777
  without expense or further anxiety to the parties.
  *The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I am aware of the question which has been raised regarding the marriages referred to; and a Bill has been drafted, which will, it is hoped, be laid before Parliament early next session, to quiet all doubts as to the validity of these marriages and of certain others in which similar irregularities have occurred elsewhere. I am informed that correspondence upon the subject at Dalton-le-Dale commenced as long ago as 1893; and I think it is to be regretted that the irregularities were allowed to continue so long afterwards. As regards the cost of legalising the marriages already solemnised, the secretary to the Bishop of Durham, who received a deputation from the vestry of the parish in December last, informs me that he has no knowledge of any question of this kind having arisen. The only point discussed with him was the fee which would be payable if a licence were now granted to the old church legalising the celebration of marriages there in future.

  EDUCATION PROSECUTION AT HYDE —CASE OF FRANK HILL.
  Mr. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Frank Hill, a gasworker living at Hyde, was fined by the magistrates for not sending his child to a school, since declared by the Board of Education to be too far from the parent's home; that, on refusing to pay the fine, Mr. Hill was arrested in his own house, marched through the streets in the daytime, searched at the police station, and locked up in the cells until the money was paid; and that Mr. Hill's cottage was well stocked with household effects upon which the police could have distrained, which they refused to do; and whether he will take steps to censure the police for this arrest and detention of Mr. Hill, and to refund to him the money he had to pay as fine, seeing that the Board of Education has justified him in claiming free education at a school within reasonable distance of his house.
  *Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have already gone carefully into this case.
  778
  Mr. Frank Hill was fined for not sending his child to school, and on refusing to pay was duly arrested after several warnings from the police. The arrest was legal, and he was detained only fifteen minutes. The police state that there was nothing in the house on which distraint could be levied. There is no ground for censuring the police for their action in the matter; and as to the fine, the proceedings which led to it were perfectly regular. In view, however, of what subsequently happened I am consulting the Board of Education as to whether it might not be possible to remit the fine.
  Mr. MADDISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Nonconformist minister in Blackpool himself testified that he saw furniture worth £15 in this man's house?
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have the statement of the inspector of police who visited the house twice. He informs me there were no goods that could be distrained upon.
  Mr. MADDISON: It was the Rev. W. Evans, of Blackpool.
  *Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY: I know him perfectly well. He has written me several letters.

  WATERPROOFS FOR PARK KEEPERS.
  Mr. JOHN HUTTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of providing the park keepers with long waterproofs in place of the present short capes.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The matter is under consideration, and I will let my hon. friend know the result later on.

  BURIAL OF BODIES CAST UP BY THE SEA.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the outlay involved in the burial of dead bodies washed ashore on the coast of seaboard counties; whether he has received a memorial on the subject from the county council of Anglesey; and whether he will take steps to obtain a

  779
  contribution from the Exchequer to lessen the loss which now falls upon the ratepayers of the county, or take other necessary steps to remedy the grievance under the present law.
  Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): The attention of my right hon. friend has been called to the subject to which the hon. Member refers, and he has received a memorial from the Anglesey County Council respecting it. It has, however, always been considered that counties enjoying the many benefits which the possession of a sea-coast confers may fairly be called upon to meet charges such as the one in question, and it is not likely that the Treasury would be willing to make any contribution as suggested. Moreover, legislation for the purpose would be requisite.

  THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  Mr. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the National Telephone Company have intimated to the Postmaster General that they agree, in terms of Section 3 of the Telegraphs Act, 1899, to it being made a condition of their licence that they will not give preference to any person within the area specified in the licence by the Postmaster General to the Corporation of Glasgow, and will not within that area, as a condition of giving a service, require any person to grant any facility except for the purposes of supplying telephonic communication to that person; whether they have claimed, in respect of coming under this condition, that the permissive powers to open streets in certain burghs within that area now hold good for the whole term of their licence, and further, that their licence be extended from 1911 to 1913, so as to terminate at the same time as the licence to the Corporation of Glasgow; whether the company have issued a print of an agreement with subscribers in the Glasgow area, dated 18th June, 1900, under which the intending subscriber must bind himself as a condition of receiving a connection from the company not to subscribe to any exchange telephone system other than that of the company, or use at any of his premises any telephone instruments in connection
  780
  with any such other system, and the company thus propose to give favour of preference to persons in the Glasgow district who do not join the Corporation Telephone Exchange as against those persons who do join that exchange; and what steps the Postmaster General is prepared to take to secure that the company shall not obtain privileges under last year's Telegraphs Act, and at the same time refuse its obligations.
  Mr. HANBURY: The National Telephone Company have stated to the Postmaster General that they are willing that the conditions mentioned in the question shall be made a condition of their licence. They have also undertaken to prove to the satisfaction of the Postmaster General that they have incurred, or contracted to incur, material expenditure in laying underground wires in certain burghs in the Glasgow area, and have acquired powers for the purpose under agreements with the local authorities. The Postmaster General is not aware that the company have at present claimed that the powers given by their agreements with local authorities in the Glasgow area will hold good during the period of the licence granted to the Corporation of Glasgow, and that their licence will be extended for the full period of the corporation licence; but, when the conditions to be observed on the part of the company have been duly complied with, they will, no doubt, claim that they are entitled to the advantages specified in Section 3 of the Telegraph Act, 18a9. The Postmaster General's attention has been drawn to the form of agreement now being offered by the company to their subscribers. There is some doubt whether the condition mentioned by the hon. Member can be held to be a breach of the undertaking not to give preference to persons in the Glasgow area, but there is another condition in the agreement form —that as to giving way-leaves for the wires of other persons—which would unquestionably be a violation of the undertaking not to require any person to grant any facility except for the purpose of supplying telephonic communication to that person. Any breach of the new conditions which the company are to accept as conditions of their licence will, when those conditions are legally in force, render the company liable to the same penalty as a breach of the original

  781
  conditions—namely, the termination of their licence.

  RETURN OF RAILWAY COMPANIES' RUNNING POWERS,
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will reconsider his decision not to grant a Return of the running powers of each railway company of the United Kingdom over the lines of other companies, and of the working arrangements between the several railways, in similar form to the summaries in the Book of Railway Junction Diagrams, formerly published by Mr. J. Airey, of the Railway Clearing House; whether he is aware that, prior to the taking over by the Railway Clearing House of Mr. Airey's copyrights, such information was accessible to traders and the public; and whether the Board of Trade have in their possession the materials for making such a Return, or whether they are dependent upon the goodwill of the railway companies or the Railway Clearing House for the necessary information; whether he can state the grounds on which the railway companies and Railway Clearing House base their refusal to furnish the requisite information; and whether, seeing that it has been represented to him that such information is under certain conditions of importance to traders, he will, in case of the persistence of the railway companies to refuse to traders and the public particulars as to the powers conferred upon them by Parliament, in the interest of the public, take further steps with the object of obtaining for the public the information sought for by the Motion.
  The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am aware that the information desired was formerly accessible to traders and the public, but the Board of Trade are information by the companies that a statement of statutory running powers possessed by them at any given date could not be permanently relied upon for accurate information, inasmuch as many of the powers so possessed are not exercised, while some are exercised but partially, and others only intermittently, according to varying requirements. The Return which my hon. friend asks for would therefore be obviously misleading, and it appears to me that the better course is to adopt a sug-
  782
  gestion made by the companies, which is, that traders desiring information on the subject of running powers should apply to the railway company in question for such information. If it is found that the railway companies do not furnish information when requested to do so by persons interested, I will, of course, be happy to give further consideration to the matter.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Does the answer imply that the Board of Trade will give the information?
  MR. RITCHIE: If the traders, on applying to the company, fail to get the information, then I will give the matter attention.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Then the Board of Trade have not the information?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir.

  VACCINATION STATISTICS.
  Mr. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what have been the total expenses of the guardians in the unions of Wellingborough and Kettering in respect of public vaccination in each of the three years ending 31st December, 1897, 31st December, 1898, and 31st December, 1899; and what have been the amounts of the fees to public vaccinators and vaccination officers; and what have been the expenses of prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts in each of the three years named in the said unions.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what have been the total expenses of the guardians in the unions of Keighley and Dewsbury in respect of public vaccination in each of the three years ending 31st December, 1897, 31st December 1898, and 31st, December 1899; and what have been the amounts of the fees to public vaccinators and vaccination officers; and what have been the expenses of prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts in each of the three years named in the said unions.
  MR. LOGAN: To ask the President of

  783
  the Local Government Board if he will state what have been the total expenses of the guardians in the unions of Leicester and Market Harborough in respect of public vaccination in each of the three years ending 31st December, 1897, 31st December, 1898, and 31st December, 1899; what have been the amounts of the fees to public vaccinators and vaccination officers; and what have been the expenses of prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts in each of the three years named in the Leicester and Market Harborough unions.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): Perhaps I may be allowed to reply at the same time to this question and to the two following ones which stand in the names of the hon. Members for the Keighley and Harborough Divisions. The Local Government Board are not in possession of the information asked for. The expenditure of boards of guardians in relation to public vaccination is shown in the Local Taxation Returns, but these Returns are made up for the twelve months ending in March. The Returns for the year ended March, 1898, have already been published. Those for the following year will be issued in a few days, and the Returns for the year ended at March, 1900, will appear in due course.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that boards of guardians pay their accounts quarterly, and that these figures are obtainable from the boards of guardians? I have obtained them myself. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the Local Taxation Returns, which will be issued in a few days, will only give the expenses of the new system of vaccination for three months from the commencement of the Act, whereas what I ask for is three full years expenses up to the end of 1899.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am not aware of the fact referred to, but I would point out that Returns affecting only three unions are asked for.

  BUTE SHERIFF CLERK.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Mr. Alexander, the sheriff clerk of the county of Bute, is a
  784
  partner of, or has a pecuniary interest in, the firm of J. T. Wilson and Alexander, who carry on the business of law agents in Rothesay in the office of the sheriff clerk; and that the process accounts due to the firm are charged in the name of the other partner, and are taxed by the sheriff clerk, who is also auditor of court; and whether all this is in accordance with the position and tenure of office of the sheriff clerk.
  *The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed that the Mr. Alexander, sheriff clerk of the county of Bute, has a pecuniary interest in the firm named. I am informed that inasmuch as the firm has never had a process in the Sheriff Court (which class of work alone is prohibited), it has never had a process requiring taxation. The sheriff informs me that he is quite satisfied with the arrangements made in the sheriff clerk's office and with the way the work has been performed therein. I see no reason to differ from him.

  CARNOUSTIE BAY—STEAM TRAWLING.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland (Part I.) shows that, owing to the vigilance of the Carnoustie coastguard, the masters of five trawlers were found guilty and fined for trawling within prohibited waters in Carnoustie Bay, Forfarshire, last August; and, in view of the services thus rendered to the Scottish line fishing industry, will he consider the expediency of giving instructions for similar vigilance to be exercised at other coastguard stations on the coast of Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not aware that the coastguard at Carnoustie had instructions differing from those under which the coastguard generally act. Vigilance is enjoined upon all officers and men in carrying out their instructions.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE—THE BAGOT ESTATE.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the population of the Aughrane estate, in Killeroran Division, Mount

  785
  Bellew Union, is 2,583, the valuation of whose holdings is only £3,330 3s.; whether he is aware that a portion of the best lands of the division are let on the eleven months system; and whether, as the Bagot estate, which is now in the Court of Chancery is to be offered for sale, will he have the division scheduled so as to enable the tenants to purchase through the Congested Districts Board.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have no information as to the estate referred to in the first part of the question, but as it is stated to be in an electoral division which is not scheduled as congested within the meaning of Section 36 of the 54 and 55 Viet. cap. 48, there is no legal power to extend the provisions of this enactment to the division.

  TRANSPORT OF DOGS FROM IRELAND.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the hardship caused by the existing regulations for the transport of dogs from Ireland to Wales; and whether, following the precedent of last year, he will so far relax the restrictions as to allow an owner on production of a veterinary surgeon's certificate to bring his dog from Ireland to Wales.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): My right hon. friend desires me to say that his attention has been called to the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but he regrets that he does not see his way to relax the existing restrictions in the manner suggested. The arrangement made last year did not work very satisfactorily; very few persons availed themselves of it, and the fact that there is every reason to believe that rabies no longer exists in Great Britain, appears to my right hon. friend to make it more than ever his duty to take every possible precaution against its re-introduction from Ireland, where, unfortunately, cases still occur from time to time.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT TARBERT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  786
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what quantity of land is held by Captain R. Leslie, D.L., of Tarbert, county Kerry, in his own possession, and how many labourers' cottages, if any, have been erected by the local authority on the land in Captain Leslie's possession; and whether Captain Leslie has been a consenting party to the erection of labourers' cottages on his lands.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The clerk of the rural district council! states that the quantity of land held by Captain Leslie in his own possession is 452 acres, the valuation of which is £274. The number of labourers' cottages erected by the local authority on this land is six. Captain Leslie has, so the clerk states, consented to the erection of two of these cottages.

  THE TARBERT MAGISTRACY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Mr. S. E. Collis, of Tiereclea, Tarbert, county Kerry, has recently been appointed to the Commission of the Peace; whether Mr. Collis was at any previous time a magistrate; and, if so, why has he been appointed now a second time; and on what grounds and on whose recommendation was Mr. Collis recently appointed a magistrate.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Mr. Collis, who had been an active magistrate for twenty years, resigned his Commission of the Peace in 1893 in order to become a candidate for a county office which he obtained. That office having been abolished by the Local Government Act, he was last year re-apppointed to the magistracy on the recommendation of the Lieutenant of the county, who considered him a fit and proper person to be a magistrate.

  SNEEM PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in a case of trespass between Mr. Warden and another, heard at the Sneem Petty Sessions, county Kerry, the local district inspector of police took part on the side of Mr. Warden, who is a local

  787
  landlord; whether it is usual for police officers to act in this way on a private trespass summons; and, if the matter be denied by the local officer, will the constabulary authorities grant an inquiry into the case.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any case in which the District Inspector of Constabulary acted improperly.

  DESTRUCTION OF WILD BIRDS IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in several places on the west coast of Ireland a destruction of wild birds is being carried on; and, if this practice is not in accordance with the regulations issued, whether he will direct that greater vigilance should be exercised by the proper authorities for its prevention.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The destruction of wild birds in the close season would, of course, be illegal, but from reports received from the Constabulary it appears there is no destruction of wild birds in the west of Ireland, as suggested in the question. The Constabulary are fully instructed to enforce the Wild Birds Protection Acts, and I believe they are vigilant to prevent any contravention of the law in this respect.

  ARMS ACT ADMINISTRATION— MURDER OF Mr. HUDSON.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether complaints were made to the police, or reports made by the local police or any of them to the authorities, to the effect that the man Smith, since convicted of the murder of the Rev. Mr. Hudson, was in possession of arms and a danger to the public safety; did Constable Langrille, of the Clarina Petty Sessions District, make such a report in the autumn or early winter of last year; and is he aware that Langrille so stated at the trial of Smith; can he say what steps, if any, were taken to control the man Smith, and, if none were taken, can ho explain on what grounds, and if such reports were received by the authorities; and can he state whether such reports have since been mislaid, and if it is the intention of the Government, in consequence of the local feeling occasioned by
  788
  this murder, to hold an inquiry into the conduct of the police authorities immediately responsible for the peace of the district.
  The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): No complaints were made to the police, and no reports were made by them of the character mentioned in the first paragraph. Constable Langrille stated at the trial that he had made inquiries respecting the discharge by Smith of a firearm in the yard attached to his house in September last, rather incautiously, and that he reported that Smith was duly licensed to keep arms. Neither the constable nor any other person reported that the possession of arms by Smith was a danger to the public safety. No stops were taken by the police to control Smith. The discharge by him of a firearm in September of last year was not considered a sufficient reason for recommending the withdrawal of his arms, licence. The reports made by the police respecting this incident, which were not of a formal character, were not mislaid. They were not furnished to headquarters, and were destroyed with other documents, by the local police as being of no value. It is not the intention of the Government to hold an inquiry, as suggested in the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: If this man Smith had been a Nationalist instead of a supporter of the Government, would he have been allowed the arms?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS IN IRELAND.
  Dr. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the highest rate of interest—namely, 5 per cent.—is charged by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland on advances of public moneys for public libraries, and the construction of fishery piers and harbours, and can he explain why these particular items are so weighted with a maximum period of repayment of twenty-five years.
  MR. HANBURY: The maximum period in both cases is that fixed by 1 and 2 Will. IV. cap. 33, s. 40. The interest, in cases where the security of local rates

  789
  is given, follows the rate fixed by the Treasury for such loans under the Public Works Loans Act of 1897. That rate is at present 3½ per cent., not 5 per cent. Where the security of local rates is not given, the rate of interest on pier and harbour loans would be, under 46 and 47 Vict. cap. 26, 3½ per cent.; under 9 Vict, cap. 3, 5 per cent. As a matter of fact, however, no loans have for many years been made under either of these Acts.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGE LOANS.
  Dr. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why labourers' cottages, erected by order of the Land Commission, bearing rate of interest 3½ per cent., are required to be paid for in twenty-two years, while, at the same rate of interest, for the cottages erected by boards of guardians fifty years are allowed for repayment.
  MR. HANBURY: The two classes of loans are made under different Acts and on different security. Clearly, better terms can be allowed when loans have the collateral security of the rates. The maximum of fifty years is not always granted even in this number of loans having been made for a period of thirty-five years.

  BALLYGOWAN POSTMASTER.
  Dr. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. Joseph Gibson, postmaster at Ballygowan, county Down, after several reprimands, walked on 7th July and also on 12th July at the head of an Orange procession, and whether, this same gentleman having been previously reprimanded for having appeared in public in a similar way, he will now consider his conduct with a view of having an assurance from him that he will not take part in future in such processions.
  MR. HANBURY: The sub-postmaster referred to by the hon. Member did, it has been ascertained, walk at the head of an Orange procession on the 8th and 12th of July last. An anonymous complaint was made in 1898 that the sub-postmaster had taken part in Orange processions, and it was then pointed out to him that it was undesirable that an officer in his
  790
  position should take a prominent part in such demonstrations. He has now given an assurance that he will refrain from so doing in future.
  Dr. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is carried out?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH GOLD ORNAMENTS.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the inquest on the Irish gold ornaments, which has been ordered by the Treasury, is likely to take place.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It has recently been ascertained that the words of the patent of 10 Charles II., granted to the Irish Society for the plantation of Ulster, are large enough to vest in the society the right to treasure trove. Under these circumstances it will be necessary to consider whether the Crown has any interest in the controversy and whether such proceedings as may be taken should not be instituted by that society.

  LAW OF COPYRIGHT.
  *MR. PURVIS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir Richard Jebb), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Bill to amend the law relating to literary copyright has been submitted to two separate Select Committees of the House of Lords, has twice been passed by that House, and has also received the approval of authors, publishers, chambers of commerce, and other bodies interested in copyright property, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of themselves introducing legislation on the lines of that Bill.
  The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): My hon. friend will understand that I am very reluctant to give pledges at the end of the session about work in another session; that reluctance is increased in the present case from the fact that the Government have no information at present as to how a Bill is viewed in the colonies which very greatly affects those colonies.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS BILL.
  Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
  Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 355.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 355.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Supplemental War Loan Bill, without amendment.
  Local Government (Ireland) Bill, Tramway (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—
  Money-lending Bill [Lords], County Courts (Investment of Deposits)
  Bill [Lords], Military Lands Bill [Lords], without amendment.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 325.]
  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 326.]

COLONIAL STOCK BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. CALDWELLsaid he wished to leave out "purpose" from line 5 and insert the words, "purposes of Section 2 of this Act." He explained that the object of putting down the Amendment was to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement as to whether the object of dispensing with the requirements mentioned in the sub-section was to enable stock which had not been issued under the Act to come within the operation of the Colonial Stock Act, and whether there was no intention in any way to give relief to stocks already under the Act, but
792
which had not complied with its requirements. If that correctly described the intention of the clause, then he doubted if the wording sufficiently carried it out; hence his Amendment. Still, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied with the clause as it stood, and assured them it would not relieve stocks of their existing liability under the Act, but would only affect new stock brought in, then he would not press the Amendment. Pending the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, however, he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, to leave out 'purpose,' and insert 'purposes of Section 2 of this Act and.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The intention of the clause is precisely as the hon. Member says. It merely affects stocks which have not hitherto come within the operation of the Act. I do not think the Amendment would in any way improve it.
MR. CALDWELL: I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
MR. CALDWELL: I have to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar, namely—
"In page 1, line 16, to leave out from 'observed,' to end of paragraph, and insert 'the conditions as set forth in the Schedule to this Act.'"
*The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is out of order. It refers to a schedule," whereas none is proposed.
Sir M. HICKS BEACH: I think the Amendment I have to propose will meet the views of the hon. Member.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, at end, to add, 'The Treasury shall keep a list of any Colonial stocks in respect of which the provisions of this Act are for the time being complied with, and shall publish the list in such manner as they think fit.'"—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. CALDWELLsaid this Amendment introduced a novel procedure.

793
Hitherto the conditions under which trustees were allowed to invest in certain stocks had been laid down by Act of Parliament. But by this Bill the Treasury took the place of Parliament, and assumed the responsibility. It was to fix the conditions under which trustees might invest in certain Colonial stock, and it was practically to grant a certificate that certain conditions had been complied with. That might or might not be a good thing, but it certainly was an entire departure from the principles which had hitherto characterised the legislation of this country. Now the Treasury he noted was to "publish the list in such manner as they think fit." This he thought was too wide a power, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would substitute some more definite instruction.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid this sub-section seemed to him to be an attempt to put the Treasury above every Act of Parliament. It proposed to empower it to impose conditions contained in no Act of Parliament, and which might not necessarily be of a cognate nature with it. It was an extremely dangerous thing to give the Treasury power to make provisions which would practically override an Act of Parliament; yet here it was proposed to enable it to impose any mortal condition it pleased, in addition to those insisted upon by Act of Parliament. They knew that the Treasury had far too much power already in regard to prescribing the form in which accounts should be rendered, and the result of the exercise of it in the past had been altogether unsatisfactory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed that the Treasury should keep a list of any Colonial stocks in respect of which the provisions of this Act were for the time being com-plied with, and should publish the list in such manner as they thought fit. They might, in fact, publish it in any method, or in any newspaper they pleased. It might, if the Treasury were corrupt, be reserved exclusively for one publication. He objected to all that part of the clause which followed the word "Act." But if it was to be passed and this addendum made, then it must be amended, and he would move to leave out all the words after "in" in the Amendment in order to insert the words "the London Gazette."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'in,' in line 4, in order to insert the words 'the London Gazette.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'such manner as they think fit' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. JAMES LOWTHERpointed out that the list might, as it stood, be altered and amended on grounds not altogether financial. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware that pressure was brought to bear by the Colonial Governments to obtain facilities for placing their stocks on the London money market in return for favours done by them for the Imperial Government. Colonial communities were very anxious to get an official recognition of their stocks, and were prepared to offer inducements in return not of a financial character. It would be most desirable to secure that the proposals relating to the application of this Bill when it became an Act should be wholly based on financial grounds.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to say that he was not aware that any inducements had been offered of the kind suggested by the right hon. Member for Thanet. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he was prepared to accept it.
MR. CALDWELLdid not consider that the Amendment was an improvement. The document was not well or widely known, and if these words were to be added it ought to at least be in such a way as would ensure the document being laid before Parliament so that people might be able to see it. If it was intended that these stocks should be well taken up, the procedure should be made as simple as possible. People could not lie expected to turn up the London Gazette time after time to see what stock was authorised and what not. A better way would be to let the certificate be recorded in the books of the registry of the particular stocks, and place the general registry in the Land Registry, where trustees, who were personally responsible for the investments they made, were in the habit

795
of making searches in such matters, so that people could go and see it at once. To have to look up the London Gazette every time one wanted to make an investment to see if a stock was authorised and when it was authorised, and whether it had since been cancelled, would be an interminable task. And it was quite impracticable. He would rather take the right hon. Gentleman's word upon such a matter, because in the course of time the right hon. Gentleman would give some tangible information. He hoped some more satisfactory arrangement would be made which would give the public good information.
*SIR. HICKS BEACHsuggested that the clause should read "in the London Gazette, or in such other manner as will give the public full information."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked leave, in the face of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Amendment of Sir M. Hicks Beach, altered as just indicated, agreed to.
Clauses 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that this Bill ought not to apply to Scotland. There was already power in Scotland for investing in Colonial stocks, that power being vested in the Court of Session. In England power in this matter was vested in Parliament, in Scotland it was delegated to the Court of Session.
New clause—
"This Bill shall not apply to Scotland."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
—brought up, and read a second time.
Motion moved, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*Sir M. HICKS BEACHcomplained that no notice had been given by the hon. Gentleman of his intention to move this clause. He pointed out that the Colonial Stocks Act applied to both kingdoms alike. It was possible at present for the proper courts in England to give trustees authority to invest in Colonial stocks. It
796
had been done in Scotland but not in England, because the English courts did not desire to act in the matter without an Act of Parliament. This Bill, when passed, would strengthen the hands of the Court of Session in Scotland. He could not agree not to extend the Bill to Scotland, which had quite as much need for the Bill as England.
MR. CALDWELLadmitted that he had given no notice of his motion, but drew attention to the fact there would be a conflict of jurisdiction in Scotland which was not desirable if this Bill was made to apply to Scotland.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACHundertook, if the hon. Member for Mid Lanark did not press the motion, to consider the matter between this and the Report stage.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported, with Amendments. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

SUPPLEMENTAL WAR LOAN BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
*Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: This Bill contains a large loan for our military operations in China, and this perhaps is the only occasion upon which we have an opportunity of calling attention to the deplorable delay which has taken place in those military operations. The accounts-coming to us both from Peking, where the Legations are still in the direst straits, and from Tientsin, where the relief force is assembled, are of the most alarming character. The latest accounts from Peking say that the Legations on the 21st or 22nd of July had only a fortnight's provisions and very little ammunition. The fortnight has expired; whilst the reports from Tientsin show a deplorable want of harmony amongst the commanders of the allied forces. I do not propose on this Bill to go into the policy of the Government, but I think we have a right to complain of the long; delay which has taken place in starting; the relief expedition, and also of the fact,

797
that, so far as we know, no commander-in-chief has been appointed for that expedition. The appointment of a commander-in-chief is a most serious military necessity—far more serious nowadays than it would have been twenty or even ten years ago, because the operations of modern warfare are on so large a scale, and turning movements are so great, that there never was a time when a directing chief was so important as the present. Yet we cannot find, although Her Majesty's Government have had two months in which to make arrangements for this expedition, that any commander-in-chief has been appointed. The result of that may be very serious upon the Legations when the force approaches Peking. It may be very serious indeed also, on the grounds of humanity, when the population of Peking, amounting to 1,000,000, are exposed to the attacks of five or six different armies without any direct heading. We already know what serious events have occurred at Tientsin, where apparently there was a deplorable massacre of the civilian Chinese population by the Russian troops, and we also know the delays which have taken place for want of a commander-in-chief. I read in a telegram from Tientsin that the greatest indignation is felt there at the delay. The president of the Tientsin University made a speech ten days ago, in which he said—
"This way of proceeding is not in accordance with Anglo-Saxon traditions; 21,000 soldiers are staying here, while women and children of their own race are starving and awaiting massacre eighty miles away. The officers are wasting their time in bickering over party politics."
That is borne out by information which comes to nearly every English paper. It is possible, of course, that all the correspondents may be mistaken, and that the utmost is being done for the relief of Peking, but it does not appear to be so. Unfortunately we have ground in the past for distrusting the energy of Her Majesty's Government on this point. My right hon. friend the Under Secretary of State the other day attempted to justify the delay which took place before the despatch of 6th July to the Japanese Government. That despatch of 6th July was, in my opinion, the first sign that Her Majesty's Government really grasped the necessities of the position. On 6th July
798
they did give a direct guarantee to the Japanese Government that, if Japan would send an adequate force, Japan would be supported by Great Britain. I hold if that statement had been made on 8th June, when the gravity of the crisis became known, the Japanese would have sent a sufficient force, which would have saved us a great part of this large vote of credit for the relief of the Legations. There is a remarkable and interesting letter in The Times to-day from Tokio, dated 6th July, the very (late of that despatch. That letter says—
"Japan could have dispatched an army of 50,000 men within ten days of the receipt of the news that Tientsin had been invested.… With such a programme (the balance of power and the open door) Japan entirely sympathises. But she declines to rely on conjecture only. She wants an explicit, understanding, and it is in Downing Street that the outlines of an understanding must be traced. If the British Government consents to be explicit, the difficulties will disappear at once. By this time a strong Japanese force might have been marching to the relief of Peking."
That entirely bears out what I have stated in this House before, that Her Majesty's Government have not bean sufficiently decided and explicit in regard to employment of a large Japanese force. I am very much afraid that precisely the same course of want of decision, which led to the delay in the guarantee to Japan and the risking of the Legations, has been pursued in regard to the appointment of the commander-in-chief. It is obvious that a commander-in-chief should be appointed, and it is obvious also that he should be an English general officer. Our interests in China are far the largest, our historical connection with China is the greatest, our trade is far the most valuable, and our force at Tientsin are, I believe, the most numerous of any European force there—of course not so numerous as the Japanese. To allow this question of the commander-in-chief to drift, to allow the forces of Europe to be arrested in their progress at Tientsin, owing to the bickerings which prevail amongst their leaders, while the Legations are in a state of the utmost need, and while their food is running short, if it has not entirely disappeared, creates a very serious responsibility for Her Majesty's Government. I am afraid it is due to their pursuit of that will-o'-the-wisp the Concert of Europe, which they will never find in

799
any part of the world, and least of all in European policy towards China. Their only hope is the adoption of a clear British policy, both political and military, and the support of that policy by all the friendly aid that Her Majesty's Government can obtain. They can get the support of the Japanese if they will only be explicit. They can get the support of the United States. They probably can get the support of Germany as well. But to wait for that chimera the Concert of Europe, when they know that several European Powers are deliberately counterworking their efforts, will only too likely end in the loss of those lives which everyone in this country is so anxious to see saved.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
MR. T. P. O'CONNORmoved that the Amendments be considered that day three months. He made no apology for taking this action against the Bill even at this late stage of the session. His hon. friends and himself had felt it to be their duty to meet this measure with the most determined opposition at every stage, and they were determined to continue that opposition to the end. From their point of view, this was one of the many measures by which Her Majesty's present advisers had sought to undo the effect upon the landlords of Ireland of the different Land Acts which had been passed for the relief of the tenants in Ireland. Speakers from the Liberal benches had described this measure as one introduced by the Government for the purpose of giving doles to certain classes of their Unionist supporters. That part of the subject had been ably dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, and he did not propose to say anything about it. He would confine himself to the effect of this Bill upon Ireland. Some difference of opinion arose as to the manner in which the landlords received, when originally proposed, the measure which enabled them to buy
800
out for a certain number of years the tithe rent-charge. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh strongly denied that this boon, or, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer-called it, this bribe, was received with any great manifestation of gratification on their part. But there was one point, with regard to the manner in which the speech introducing the Irish Church Bill was received as to which there was and could be no contest, and that was the feeling of emotion and satisfaction with which the announcement was received that a portion of the funds received from the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church would be devoted to the relief of unavoidable misery. Everybody assumed at the time, and rightly assumed, that what Mr. Gladstone, in that great and historic speech, meant by that was that the funds he was compelled, in the-interest of religious equality, to divert from the support of a particular religious, body would be so far reserved for, so to speak, spiritual purposes.
*Mk. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is at liberty to discuss the general effect of the Lords Amendments to the Bill, but he cannot enter into a. discussion of a Second Beading nature.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had endeavoured to ascertain the exact limits prescribed by the rules of the House, but-he had misunderstood the information given to him. He thought he might be in order in discussing the general policy of the Bill, but, after the ruling from the Chair, it would be most improper to pursue that line of discussion. He regarded it as something of a Parliamentary indecency that the Government should persist in this Bill at this time of the session, and should introduce two or three days before the final sitting of the session Amendments so important as those, which had been made in the House of Lords. When he was told that he might discuss the effect of the Lords Amendments, he was sorry to say that he found it somewhat difficult to respond to the suggestion, because, though he had gone over these Amendments several times, he must say that some of the provisions remained almost as much a Chinese puzzle as they were before. So far as he was able to interpret these Amendments, they were for the purpose of making the Bill

801
somewhat more favourable to the position of the landlords. If that was so he must enter a strong protest against the adoption of such a proposal at the eleventh hour of the session. He should await with some curiosity the explanation of these Amendments by the Attorney General.
*MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move an Amendment?
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move that the Lords Amendments be considered this day three months.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLseconded the motion. He said that, although the Amendments were technically in order, practically this was a measure dealing with money. If this money had come as a fresh grant from the public funds, these Amendments could not be considered at all, but as they were dealing with the Irish Church Fund the Amendments were technically in order. Not one line or dot in this Bill, which had been discussed in Committee of this House for nearly eight days, had been allowed to be put in the measure in consequence of Amendments from the Irish Benches. He believed he was right in stating that every one of these Amendments which the House was now asked to accept had been proposed in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown, Lord Ashbourne. He considered that these changes made a fresh raid on the Irish Church Fund in favour of the landlords. Therefore, he thought lie was perfectly in order in denouncing
this measure as a fraud on the original Irish Church Act. There was one Amendment in particular which he thought was exceedingly wrong, and that was the Amendment to the fourth section.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRE, LAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): That is merely a drafting Amendment.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the Amendment was not made at the time it was proposed by his hon. friend, who represented one of the divisions of Cornwall, because the Government and the Attorney General felt that if the Amendment was accepted it would give the House a chance of discussing the Bill again on Report. He thought that course was exceedingly wrong. This was undoubtedly another raid on the Church Fund, and more especially was this the case in regard to Lord Ashbourne's poor-rate Amendment. He should oppose those Amendments, because they facilitated a further raid on the Irish Church Fund in the interests of one class who were the most worthless class in any community.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon tins day three months.'"—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 85; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 282.)

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Collings, lit. Hon. Jesse

Heath, James

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)

Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

Curzon, Viscount

Howard, Joseph

Balcarres, Lord

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Denny, Colonel

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

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

Douglas, lit. Hon. A. Akers-

lumber, Henry

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lafone, Alfred

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Brist'l)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Bhundell, Colonel Henry

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Brassey, Albert

Fisher, William Hayes

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lowles, John

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Flower, Ernest

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cumb'l'nd

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Macarthey, W. G. Ellison

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J(St George's

Maclure, Sir John William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win.

Malcolm, Ian

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Purvis, Robert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Vincent, Cl. Sir C. E. H. (Sheff'ld

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

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

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull)

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks)

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

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Wyndham, George

Percy, Earl

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Thornton, Percy M.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Asquith, Ht Hon Herbert Henry

Haldane, Bichard Burdon

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

Baker, Sir John

Hazell, Walter

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Blake, Edward

Hogan, James Francis

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Steadman, William Charles

Brigg, John

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Burns, John

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumberl'd

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Burt, Thomas

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Caldwell, James

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Ure, Alexander

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qn's Co

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

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

Crilly, Daniel

Mather, William

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Dilke, Kt. Hon. Sir Charles

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Edwards, Owen Morgan

Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Lords Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 1, line 24, agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 3, after line 40, insert:—
'(2.) Where the hereditaments out of which the tithe rent-charge is payable are situate partly in an urban and partly in a rural district any question which may arise as to the portions of the tithe rent-charge which are to be deemed for the purposes of this section to be payable in respect of the parts of the hereditaments situate in the rural and urban districts respectively shall be referred to the Land Commission, whose decision shall be final.
'(3.) Section 1 of the Tithe Kent-charge (Ireland) Act, 1848 (which provides for deduction from rent paid in respect of tithe rent-charge) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, where tithe rent-charge is reduced by virtue of this section, [and, in the application of the said Section 1 to tithe rent-charge payable out of hereditaments situate within a rural district, "one-quarter" shall be substituted for "one-half."].'"
—read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. SWIFT MacNEILLthought the Attorney General was treating the House scarcely fairly in pressing these Amendments without any explanation.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Atkinson, Londonderry, N.)explained that under Section 6 a difference was made in the deduction from the tithe rent according to whether a hereditament lay in a rural or an urban district. All that this section did was to enable the Land Commission to say how much should be taken as being in a rural, and how much in an urban district.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 4, line 25, after 'sale,' insert '(3.) Where the estate or interest conveyed was less than the fee-simple, this section shall not apply after the determination of such less estate or interest.'"
—read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. ATKINSONwas understood to state that the object of this Amendment was to shut out from the benefits of the Act any person who purchased one of the hereditaments which under the Act of 1836 made the owner liable to pay tithes.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLopposed the Amendment, the effect of which was to make a fresh raid on the Irish Church Fund in the interest of the landlords. The Chief Secretary, on behalf of the Government, ought not to accept this Amendment to his own clause, introduced in fulfilment of a promise in the House. The clause, after seven days incubation in the Irish Office, was made as favourable to the landlords as was possible in the face of that promise, and it was not fair that it should now be made more favourable.
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid the section in which these Amendments were inserted was a very complicated one. The hon. Member for North Louth suggested that the clause should apply only where there had been a sale of the fee simple, but the right hon. Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland thought that in addition it should include perpetual interest. That was accepted, but on further reflection it was thought desirable to except certain interests.
MR. BLAKEthought the Amendment simply carried out the intention of the original proposal, and therefore the explanation of the Chief Secretary should be accepted as reasonable and satisfactory.
Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 24, leave out sub-section (3), and insert 'The principal Act is hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of the Schedule to this Act'"
—read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. ASQUITH: This Amendment, I think, raises a question of privilege upon which it is our duty at any rate to obtain your ruling, Sir. Under Section 65 of the Act of 1890, the expenses incurred by a local authority in the execution of the Act have to be defrayed in the case of an urban sanitary authority as general expenses, and in the case of a rural sanitary authority as special expenses, with a proviso in the latter case that the County Council may determine them to be general expenses. Therefore, as the law stood at the time this Bill was introduced in this House, the expenses were prima facie special expenses, and fell on special classes of ratepayers. This House, when in Committee, by Subsection 3, Clause 2, altered that part of the 65th Section of the Act of 1890, by providing that in future these expenses should be general and not special, the result being that the incidence of this particular form of local expenditure was cast, or might be cast, upon a different class of ratepayer. The House of Lords has, by the conjoint effect of this Amendment and of the schedule, taken these expenses from the category of general expenses, in which the House of Commons had put them, and replaced them in the category of special expenses. That, I submit, is a violation, which should be resented by the House, of the well established principle that where a provision is made by the House of Commons and embodied in a Bill, and sent to the House of Lords, which in any way affects or alters the incidence of local taxation, it is not within the competence of the House of Lords, as a matter of constitutional privilege, to amend or alter that provision. I have to ask you, Sir, whether the Amendment just read does not in fact violate that well-established principle. May I, if not out of order, endeavour to anticipate an answer that might conceivably be given—namely, that what the House of Lords has done in this case, though in form to amend the financial proposals of the House of Commons, is in substance merely to reinstate the preexisting law. That I also submit cannot be within the competence of the House of Lords, for the Amendment takes the form

807
of replacing in the Bill that which would have been the general law of the land if the Bill had not passed the House of Commons; and I would point out, further, that the House of Lords have not contented themselves with replacing in the Bill the pre-existing law, but have proceeded to amend that law. They have, in fact, omitted some five or six lines of the section of the principal Act, and have made a further Amendment in the proviso at the end of the clause. They have not, in fact, reinstated the clause as it previously existed, and have amended a proposition made in this House in a matter which is beyond their competence. I therefore respectfully submit that this Amendment is a breach of the privileges of the House.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Robert FINLAY,): On the point of order I should like to say a few words in reference to what my right hon. friend has said. He is perfectly accurate in saying that under the Act of 1890 expenses of this kind were special expenses unless they were declared to be general expenses. He was not quite accurate with reference to the effect of the Bill as it left the House of Commons. As the Bill left this House, these expenses were general, but there was a power given to the Local Government Board, if they pleased, to make them special under Section 29 of the Act of 1894. What the House of Lords has done is to change the Bill in a way which leaves the law exactly as it was under the Act of 1890. They are special expenses unless the council declares them to be general. Therefore, I contend that there has not been any interference with the privileges of this House. My right hon. friend has said that the House of Lords altered the law because they had struck out certain words from Sub-section 3 of Section 65 of the Act of 1890. That is perfectly true. As the Bill left this House certain words in Sub-section 3 were struck out, and all the House of Lords did was to eliminate certain words in the proviso, which had consequently become unnecessary and meaningless. I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no breach of privilege, and that the House of Lords have restored the law as it was before this Bill was introduced.
MR. HALDANE: On the point of order I would wish, with
808
reference to what has fallen from the Attorney General, to draw attention to what the effect of the Lords Amendments, really will be, because it seems to me they will work very differently from the manner stated by the hon. Gentleman. Under the section as it stood, in the case of rural sanitary authorities the special expenses would fall on the special district: concerned, save where the burden of such expense was ordered by the county council to be borne by the contributory places, and was deemed to be expense incurred for the common benefit of all the contributory places liable. That is to say, all the contributory places must pay except where the county council shows any special cause why the expense should fall in one contributory place only. That was a power of substance, because it enabled the authority to say that the improvement had been for the benefit of a whole group of districts. The House; of Lords by its action has taken away that power from the county councils, and consequently in all cases these rates will, be special rates, and must be borne by the place for the benefit of which the improvement was made, although that place might be ill able to bear them. I submit, therefore, that the House of Lords has not only restored the existing law, but has made a very substantial alteration in: the incidence of taxation for this purpose.
*MR. SPEAKER: When this Bill was, considered on the Report stage the hon. Member for Thirsk had an Amendment on the Paper relating to this matter, and an objection was taken that it was out of order because it proposed to alter the) incidence of taxation. It was not the: same as the Amendment that was carried, in the House of Lords. The Attorney General stated that the Amendment in that shape did or possibly might alter the incidence of taxation, and both sides, being apparently in agreement, I did not go into it further, and ruled it out of order on the Report stage. With regard to the Lords Amendment, it appears to me that it is an alteration that brings us back to the state of the existing law; it does not alter the existing law. As to the statement that the alteration is different from the law as proposed by the Commons, I confess I do not, upon examination, think that it is an alteration which affects the privileges of this House. It does not, appear to me to alter the incidence of

809
taxation but rather to affect to a very limited extent the power of a public body to alter the rate from general to special in one case and from special to general in the other. I confess I do not think it is a matter which touches the question of rating in such a way as to effect an infringement of the privileges of this House.
MR. CHANNING: The House of Commons having decided that certain expenses should be general and certain other expenses should be special, I ask you, Sir, whether the Amendments of the House of Lords do not transfer a portion of the burden of
the expenditure from one class of ratepayers to another class in the same area, and whether the House of Lords have a right to alter the wording of a bill so as to levy in effect taxation on a new class of ratepayers or to impose a larger degree of taxation on another class.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is putting over again the arguments which have been already dealt with.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 283.)

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Balcarres, Lord

Flower, Ernest

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

Balfour. Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Percy, Earl

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

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Brassey, Albert

Heath, James

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Houston, R. P.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Howard, Joseph

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cavendish. V. C. W(Derbyshire

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Sharpe, William Ed ward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kimber, Henry

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J (Birm.)

Lafone, Alfred

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Thornton, Percy M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a

Tomlinson, Win. Edw. M.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheff'ld

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Lowles, John

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

Curzon, Viscount

Lowther, Rt. Hon James (Kent)

Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cumb'l'nd

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

Denny, Colonel

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Wyndham, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Maclure, Sir John William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Faber, George Denison

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Malcolm, Ian

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Hogan, James Francis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Tones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Broadhurst, Henry

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh

Burns, John

Lloyd-George, David

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt Thomas

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'sCo

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Caldwell, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Steadman, William Charles

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

M'Ewan, William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cawley, Frederick

M'Leod, John

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Charming, Francis Allston

Maddison, Fred.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Crilly, Daniel

Mather, William

Ure, Alexander

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Edwards, Owen Morgan

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

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

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sir Walter Foster and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Hazell, Walter

Rainier, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS RILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 12, after 'tenant' insert 'Provided always, that in estimating the value of any such improvement, there shall not be taken into account, as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil'"
—read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. HALDANEthought there would be a very general opinion that the Government ought to stick to their guns. When the Bill was last before the House the Government were assailed with immense vigour by a small but compact body of hon. Gentlemen who generally directed their attacks on theological points, but who on that occasion betook themselves to metaphysics. On all sides there was a protest against the repetition in the Government Bill of words which, it became clear during the debate, had no intelligible meaning; and the Minister for Agriculture in a very clear and definite way expressed the view of the Government that that clause or proviso was not one which ought to remain in the Bill. The question, it was pointed out, was not of substance; it was not a case of introducing any new principle into the Bill, but of removing words which were calculated to puzzle even acute minds. The Government took the opportunity of removing these words from the existing law; but now the Lords, thanks to the exertions of the vigorous party opposite, had reinserted them. But that did not seem to him to be any reason why the Government should run away from the very sensible attitude taken up by the Minister for Agriculture, and go back on what they had said to the House a week or two ago. He hoped the House would disagree with the Lords Amendment.
Sir ROBERT FINLAYsaid his hon. and learned friend was perfectly accurate in saying that the removal of this proviso was not intended to make any change in the law and would not make any such
812
change. On the other hand, it was stated with considerable force that to remove that proviso gave rise to a feeling that it was intended to alter the law. The former of those considerations prevailed with this House; the latter prevailed in another place. It was now for the House to determine whether, for the sake of removing this proviso which would have no effect in altering the law, it was prepared to lose the Bill, which it was admitted on all hands contained some provisions of value. Under these circumstances, and as the Government were anxious to see the Bill become law, he hoped the House would agree with the Lords Amendment.
*MR. CHAININGsaid it was a great pity that the Government had decided to take the course they had done. He believed it would create a good deal of dissatisfaction in the country. The omission of the proviso was pressed upon the President of the Board of Agriculture by an influential deputation, and it was with general assent that it had been omitted. The omission had also been supported by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, and the President of the Local Government Board on the Commission on Agriculture. It was perfectly true that in point of law, perhaps, it did not alter the law or make any substantial change to the detriment of the tenant, but there had been a very strong feeling in the minds of the tenants that the presence of these words might give rise to injustice in certain cases. When that impression had been created it seemed injudicious to reintroduce them.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that the House by a large majority had decided against these words, and he thought the small party in this House in favour of them were not justified in using their influence in another place to have the words replaced in the Bill. More than that, there was an element of threat in the expression of the Attorney General that they must accept this Amendment or lose the Bill. He protested against that attitude of the Attorney General, more especially because this Amendment might have come down from the Lords many days ago instead of on practically the last day of the session. He thought that, both in substance and because of the method

813
by which it had been introduced, Amendment ought to be rejected.
Question put.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 4, line 22, to leave out 'twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven,' and insert 'twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-five'"
read a second time.
The House divided:—Ayes, 94; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 284.)

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Flower, Ernest

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Percy, Earl

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

Heath, James

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Brassey, Albert

Houston, R. P.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Howard, Joseph

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Batcher, John George

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kimber, Henry

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

Lafone, Alfred

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm.)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lowles, John

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffld

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (Cumb'l'nd

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

Curzon, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Williams, J. Powell (Birm.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

Denny, Colonel

Maclure, Sir John William

Wyndham, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Faber, George Denison

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Field, Admiral (Easbourne)

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Hazell, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hogan, James Francis

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Blake, Edward

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Brigg, John

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Broadhurst, Henry

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumberl'd

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Burt, Thomas

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A (Qn's Co.

Steadman, William Charles

Caldwell, James

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Cawley, Frederick

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)

Crilly, Daniel

M'Leod, John

Ure, Alexander

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Maddison, Fred.

Wallace, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Edwards, Owen Morgan

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Mr. Haldane and Mr. Channing.

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Lords Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 4, line 22, agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
*MR. CHANNINGrose on a point of order to draw attention to the fact that this Amendment was consequential upon two others which appeared lower down on the Paper. He wished to ask whether

815
the passing of the Amendment would preclude any discussion upon the subsequent Amendments, and whether it would be possible in event of its so doing to postpone it until those Amendments which related to the schedule were disposed of.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not quite follow the hon. Member.
*MR. CHANNINGsaid there were Amendments upon the Paper lower down which, if agreed to, made this Amendment necessary. If it were now put from the Chair, would it not prevent the reinsertion of the items in Part 2 of the schedule which the Lords had struck out?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if these numbers, 25, 26, and 27, were struck out it would be impossible to go back to alter something in Nos. 18 and 19?
*MR. CHANNING: I confess I do not quite understand the way in which you put it.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand the present Amendment is an amendment to Nos. 25, 26, and 27—marling of land, application to land of purchased artificial or other purchased manure, etc. Is all that to be struck out?
*MR. CHANNING: Oh, no, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: Then I confess I do not follow the hon. Member.
MR. ASQUITHsaid on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire he might be permitted to explain the matter as it appeared to him. The Amendment was really consequential upon the alterations made in the Bill by the House of Lords in the schedule. If the Amendment were passed before the schedule were dealt with, it might apply to numbers which the House of Lords and this House did not intend that it should apply to.
MR. SPEAKER: In that case it might be convenient that it should be postponed.
816
The consideration of the Lords Amendment was postponed.
The next Amendment, page 5, line 9, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 8 (to leave out "exceeding one acre"), read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
*MR. CHANNINGsaid that the leaving out of those words would have the result of still compelling the farmer to obtain the consent of his landlord to plant osiers, whatever the area. Compensation would only be paid subject to the consent of the landlord being obtained. The small concessions made by the Bill appeared to him to be whittled away by this Amendment of the Lords, and he hoped the Government would resist it, having regard to the fact that the provision as originally drawn had been supported by a large majority of the House.
Sir ROBERT EINLAYhoped that the House would agree with the Lords Amendment. He was informed by those who had more knowledge of this subject than he had that this was not a matter of very great importance. There were two considerations which governed this question. First, wherever an improvement was undertaken in reasonable circumstances there could be no ground to suppose that the landlord would refuse his consent. As the effect of converting an acre of land into a garden was to improve the land, he thought that most landlords, acting reasonably, would give their consent if the tenant desired to carry out an improvement of the kind. There might, of course, be a percentage of cases in which the consent would be unreasonably refused; but should the House, for the sake of dealing with a comparatively small percentage of cases, imperil the passage of the Bill, to which all parties attached some importance?
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 285.)

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

Balcarres, Lord

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Percy, Earl

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J(St George's

Pierpoint, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Brassey, Albert

Heath, James

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Houston, R. P.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Howard, Joseph

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Butcher, John George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Kimber, Henry

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Lafone, Alfred

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Lonsdale, John Browmlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lowe, Francis William

Tomlinson, Wm, Edw. Murray

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lowles, John

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lowther, Rt. Hon James (Kent)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.(Sheffld

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Lowther, Rt. Hn J W(Cumb'land

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

Curzon, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

Denny, Colonel

Maclure, Sir John William

Wyndham, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Malcolm, Ian

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Faber, George Denison

Maple, Sir John Blundell

NOES.

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

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hazell, Walter

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Blake, Edward

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Brigg, John

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Broadhurst, Henry

MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Queen's C

Steadman, William Charles

Burns, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Burt, Thomas

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Caldwell, James

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

M'Leod, John

Ure, Alexander

Cawley, Frederick

Maddison, Fred.

Wallace, Robert

Crilly, Daniel

Mather, William

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Dalziel, James Henry

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Edwards, Owen Morgan

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Mr. Channing and Mr. Ellis Griffith.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 10 (leave out "exceeding one acre"), read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that with regard to the small holders of land in Wales the question whether they were to be able to
818
make gardens after simply giving notice instead of obtaining the consent of the landlord was one of the utmost importance. He did not think the Attorney General grasped the importance of this matter. It did not affect those whose holdings were large, or where agricultural operations were carried on, but it was a matter of the greatest importance to people occupying small holdings in the mountainous parts of the country. The right lion. Gentleman had said that if it

819
was to the benefit of the holding no landlord would withhold his consent. Such a statement showed a want of practical acquaintance with the way in which these small holdings were carried on. On small holdings in mountainous districts it often happened that a small piece of land from its soil and aspect was well adapted for growing produce for which the tenant from local circumstances could find a market, and such cultivation would be an advantage to himself and the holding. It was a simple matter, but would become impossible if the landlord's assent with conditions were required. He had in mind a large estate in Wales divided into 771 holdings, some as small as five acres, and remote from the estate office. A long correspondence and formal preliminaries would be ridiculous in relation to a garden plot.
SIR EOBEET FINLAYcould not conceive that a landlord would impose unreasonable conditions, having regard to the character of the holding, or that, except in very exceptional circumstances, any hardship to the tenant would arise from having to obtain the owners' assent.
Captain SINCLAIEasked why these considerations were not regarded when the Bill was framed. The Bill contained this provision when it was originally introduced. It was founded on the recommendation of the Central and other Chambers of Agriculture, and the Government deliberately introduced it after some discussion, and the pros and cons must have been considered before it was introduced. Although the Government had supported it, and resisted the Amendments of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, yet it was now proposed to accept the Lords Amendment. Why did not the Government in this matter stand to their guns, and hold to an Amendment which was of great importance to those concerned? It was one of the very small improvements upon preceding legislation, and it was greatly to be regretted that the Government did not show a greater disregard to the landlord interest in these matters. There was no justification for the disgraceful surrender of which they had been guilty.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I much regret the Lords Amend-
820
ments made in this Bill. I believe this Amendment will not, in the main, cause many hardships among tenants. It is mainly a sentimental grievance. I regret the action of the House of Lords, but though dissenting from the Amendments made by that House, I will vote for the Government. I quite foresee that if we were to beat the Government in this matter, which we are not likely to do, the Bill would be lost.
*MR. CHANNING: The reply of the Attorney General, so far as I understood it, was that the landlords have so good a way of attending to their own interest that they are perfectly certain to grant permission for the laying out of a garden. But I must protest against this Amendment as really almost an insane assertion of caste domination in this matter. [Laughter.] Let anyone who laughs at this just go down to the Vale of Evesham and see for himself what enormous contributions have been made to the wealth of the owners of land by the energy and outlay of the market gardeners planting gardens at their own risk. It seems to me that the doctrine embodied in the Amendment is one of the most extraordinary economic follies I have ever seen.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: We are told that the matter is not to be discussed on the merits. We are told that we must agree with the Lords Amendments or we will not get the Bill at all. I do not think that is a right position for the House of Commons to be put in. It is not against reasonable landlords that, this Bill is directed. It is against unreasonable landlords. If all landlords were reasonable we should not require a Bill of this kind directed against them. This House represents landlords quite enough. The House of Lords is a House of landlords pure and simple. I think we have a right to protest against the way the House of Commons and the Government have been overruled in the matter.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I say a few words in defence of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government are showing that they are accessible to reason and capable of repentance. I think, further, that the Attorney General has proved that he never appears to

821
greater advantage than when he is answering his own speeches. This Bill has multiplied the rights of action and the causes of quarrel between tenant and landlord too much. This Amendment will remove one right of action and cause of quarrel. It is a mistake to multiply by statute the conditions of disagreement. It is a far better way to leave tenant and landlord to themselves so far as you possibly can. The hon. Member opposite says this is only for the wicked landlords. That is the argument that is always used. I believe there are few landlords so wicked as to prevent a tenant from making such an improvement as this, which would be
a permanent improvement to his own land. The assumption of hon. Members is that all wicked landlords would prevent this improvement. I support every word of this Amendment, not on metaphysical grounds, but on the ground of keeping alive friendship between landlord and tenant, and the system of give and take. The more you leave them to themselves, and the less you put them in the chains of the words of the statute, the better prospect you have of a satisfactory feeling subsisting between them.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 95; Noes., 57. (Division List No. 286.)

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Balcarres, Lord

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Percy, Earl

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (St George's

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Pierpoint, Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Han bury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Heath, James

Purvis, Robert

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

Houston, R. P.

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Brassey, Albert

Howard, Joseph

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Butcher, John George

Kimber, Henry

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans.

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stephens, Henry Charles

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Lowe, Francis William

Thornton, Percy M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lowles, John

Tomlinson, William Edw. M.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffi'd)

Cox, Irwin Edward B.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Curzon, Viscount

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Maclure, Sir John William

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

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wyndham, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Malcolm, Ian

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Maple, Sir John Blundell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Faber, Gearge Denison

Max well, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

Sir William Walrond and. Mr. Anstruther.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Morrison, James A. (Wilts, S.)

NOES.

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

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, William(Cornwall)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Ewan, William

Blake, Edward

Doogan, P. C.

M'Leod, John

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Edwards, Owen Morgan

Maddison, Fred.

Brigg, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mather, William

Broadhurst, Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Burns, John

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport),

Burt, Thomas

Hazell, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Charming, Francis Allston

Lloyd-George, David

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham,

Crilly, Daniel

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A (Q'n.s Co

Pickersgill, Edward. Hare

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Wilson, Jos. H (Middlesbrough

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Ure, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wallace, Robert

Mr. Brynmor Jones and Captain Sinclair.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Steadman, William Charles

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 17 (leave out "exceeding one acre"), read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
MR. SOAMES (Norfolk, S.)reminded the House that this was one of the recommendations of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He could not, for the life of him, see that the landlord's property or rights were likely to be interfered with to any great degree by this provision. He trusted that the Government would see their way to go to the House of Lords once more with the proposal.

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

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

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Balcarres, Lord

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

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

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Percy, Earl

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MH.(Bristol)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goschen, Rt Hon G J (StGeorge's

Pierpoint, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Purvis, Robert

Brassey, Albert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, James

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Houston, R. F.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Butcher, John George

Howard, Joseph

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Kimber, Henry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

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

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Stephens, Henry Charles

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Coben, Benjamin Louis

Lonsdale, John Brownlee'

Thornton, Percy M.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lowe, Francis William

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Lowles, John

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Lowther, Rt. Hon James(Kent)

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheffld

Curzon, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'ra

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

Denny, Colonel

Maclure, Sir John William

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wyndham, George

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Faber, George Denison

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstrnther.

Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

NOES.

Abraham, William(CorkN. E.)

Blake, Edward

Broadhurst, Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Burns, John

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Brigg, John

Burt, Thomas

Captain SINCLAIRsaid the only inference they could draw was that there must be considerable sympathy on the part of the Government and their supporters with the action of the House of Lords in this matter. This was a matter of considerable importance to a number of small individuals. He could testify from his own knowledge that it was an interesting question in the agricultural constituencies in Scotland.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 99 58. (Division List No. 287.)

Caldwell, James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Lloyd-George, David

Robson, William Snowdon

Cawley, Frederick

MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Queen'sC

Stanhope, Hon Philip J.

Charnning, Francis Allston

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Steadman, William Charles

Crilly, Daniel

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Ewan, William

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Leod, John

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maddison, Fred.

Ure, Alexander

Doogan, P. C.

Mather, William

Wallace, Robert

Edwards, Owen Morgan

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

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

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Hazell, Walter

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Mr. Soames and Captain Sinclair.

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
Postponed Amendment agreed to.

COMPANIES BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL moved that the Lords Amendments be considered that day three months. He did not want to trouble their Lordships to consider the Bill any further. They had been considering the Bill for five years. A promise was made by this Government when it came into power, in 1895, that there should be a drastic amendment of the Companies Acts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in January, 1896, stated that fraud had become rampant and that he was sorry there was very great difficult——
*Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only discuss this Bill from the point of view of the Amendments by the Lords. He cannot discuss the general principle of the Bill, or those parts of it that both Houses are agreed on.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLsaid he had that in view. The Companies Bill had been mentioned in every Queen's Speech since the present Ministry came into power. Many of the Amendments which had been introduced in the House of Lords were Amendments which had been cut out in the House of Commons before. These Amendments were introduced at a time when it was practically impossible to disagree with them without destroying the Bill. The Government had treated the House very badly in this matter' as the Bill, although the first promised in the Queen's Speech, was not introduced until late in the session, with the result that they now had to accept an emasculated measure.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to and the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. MacNeill.)
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 23. (Division List No. 288.)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Robson, William Snowdon

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Maclure, Sir John William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

M'Ewan, William

Sinclair, Capt. J.(Forfarshire)

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St.Geo.'s

Malcolm, Ian

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

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

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)'

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd)

Steadman, William Charles

Hayne, Rt. Hon Charles Seale

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute)

Stephens, Henry Charles

Heath, James

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M..

Houston, R. P.

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Howard, Joseph

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Thornton, Percy M.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

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

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Jacoby, James Alfred

Percy, Earl

Ure, Alexander

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Vincent, Col Sir CEH (Sheffield)

Keswick, William

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wallace, Robert

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pierpoint, Robert

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Purvis, Robert

Wilson, Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wyndham, George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Lowe, Francis William

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lowles, John

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hazell, Walter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Blake, Edward

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Broadhurst, Henry

Lloyd-George, David

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Cawley, Frederick

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qn'sC.)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Crilly, Daniel

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Edwards, Owen Morgan

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Havelock Wilson.

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 6, line 18, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 18 (leave out from "any," to the first "and" in line 20), read a second time.
Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. LAWSON WALTONsaid that this Amendment raised a point of some little importance. The clause was inserted in Committee to meet the case of a company some portion of the capital and control of which was in the hands of persons holding founders' and management shares. The object of the clause was to ensure that the prospectus would bring to the attention of the intending subscriber information as to the
828
extent of the control over the company's business, and as to the extent of the interest in the company's property and profits possessed by the holders of these founders' shares. The Lords had allowed the provision relating, to the latter point to remain, but for some inexplicable reason they had deleted that portion off the clause relating to the extent of the control. Therefore, while the less important element survived, the more important was struck out; but he did not think the Lords would have done that if they had known the arguments by which the provision was supported. The task imposed upon directors by the clause was not a very heavy one, as the section would be entirely complied with by saying the number of founders' shares was 100 or 150, the holders of which were entitled to nominate three members of the board, and to divide the profits after the payment of 6 per cent. He hoped the Government would disagree with this, Amendment.
Sir ROBERT FINLAYhoped the hon. and learned Member would not take a course which, if successful, at the present period of the session, might have the result of endangering the passage of the Bill. Reference had been made to the fact that holders of founders' shares very often received quite an exceptional proportion of the profits of a company. That, however, was provided for by the Bill as it stood, because the prospectus had to state the nature and extent of the interest of holders of founders' shares in the property and profit of a company. The reason for striking out the other portion of the clause was simply that it was not desirable to overload the prospectus with too many particulars. He referred the hon. and learned Member, who had said it was not necessary to state in detail the nature of the control, to the words of the clause which specified that a prospectus was to supply particulars of the control exercised by such holders. It was easy to say that the power of nominating three directors could be stated in a line, but very often there was considerable detail as to the nature of the control which the holders of these shares had over a company, and to set out all that detail might require a very lengthy paragraph. Moreover, the information as to control could be obtained by a reference to the Articles of Association. He therefore hoped the Lords Amendment would be agreed to.
Mr. BRYNMOR JONESthought the argument that the Bill might be lost was not one which should be addressed to

AYES.

Arnold, Alfred

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Heath, James

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Col lings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Houston, R. P.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Balcarres, Lord

Cox, Irwin Edward B.

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

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

Curzon, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swan.)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Faber, George Denison

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowe, Francis William

Brassey, Albert

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lowles, John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Butcher, John George

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Maclure, Sir John William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eidon

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St.Geo.'s

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

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

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

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

those who had been critics of the measure. The Government were responsible for not introducing the Bill earlier, and there certainly had been no disposition on the part of the Opposition to delay its passage. The substance of the reply of the Attorney General with regard to this particular Amendment was simply that the prospectus might be lengthened if this information was required to be given. He, however, was not appalled by that prospect. The subsidiary clauses in the agreements between the promoters of a company and the persons taking founders' or management shares were the very things the supporters of this clause desired to strike at. It was not sufficient for the intending subscriber to know the nature and extent of the interest of such holders in the property and profit of a company. That information could be obtained in many ways. The public desired to know what were the secret bargains that were being made, so that they might not be induced to subscribe for shares on a prospectus that concealed agreements between the promoters of a company and the holders of management or founders' shares, which might be of vital importance to the successful carrying on of the undertaking. The clause would be an infinitely better one if the words struck out by the Lords were retained, and ho hoped the Amendment would be disagreed with.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes,57. (Division List No. 289.)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Percy, Earl

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thomas Myles

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Pierpoint, Robert

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

Purvis, Robert

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Wyndham, George

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Stanley, Edward Jas(Somerset)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Thornton, Percy M.

NOES.

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

Provand, Andrew Dry burgh

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hazell, Walter

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robson, William Snowdon

Brigg, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Broadhurst, Henry

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Burt, Thomas

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A (Qn's Co.

Steadman, William Charles

Caldwell, James

MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

Stephens, Henry Charles

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cawley, Frederick

M'Ewan, William

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Leod, John

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Maddison, Fred.

Ure, Alexander

Crilly, Daniel

Mather, William

Wallace, Robert

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Dalziel, James Henry

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

Denny, Colonel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Doogan, P. C.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Edwards, Owen Morgan

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Mr. Lawson Walton and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, T. P (Liverpool)

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*MR. CHANNING: I wish to say a few words on the settlement of the South African War. I offer no apology for attempting to deal briefly with this subject, because this is the last occasion on which we shall be privileged this session to offer any observations upon perhaps the gravest and most important issues this country has ever had to face. And I do not think that any apology is needed for a Member of this House coming forward, as I wish to do, in the capacity of a peacemaker. I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of my hon. friend the Member for Durham the other day, the admirable spirit and broad statesmanship of which I do not think could be praised too highly.
832
In that short but significant speech the hon. Member rather complained that on this side of the House there had been no suggestions as to the future, nor as to the conduct of these affairs to a definite issue. I wish in what I am going to say to lead up to some practical and useful suggestions for the settlement of this tremendous problem. The Colonial Secretary said the other day that it added very much to the force of the contentions of those who wished leniency to be shown to the two Republics and to the rebels in the Cape if they believed that this war was an unjust and an unnecessary war. I do not wish to enter upon that topic now, because it would be trespassing unfairly upon the time of the House. I dealt with that aspect of the case very fully on the Amendment to the Address, and all I have to say about it now is that it seems, to me that all the arguments, the contentions, and the evidence brought to light since the debate on the Address on the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Cricklade have tended only to deepen my conviction that this war was an unnecessary and an unjust war. I will not now labour that contention, nor do I wish to make any attack upon the Colonial Secretary. I think that the

833
issues which are before the House at such a moment as this are beyond any personal issues. History will have to answer many questions as to the right hon. Gentleman and his connection with these affairs; history may solve the problem why it is that the right hon. Gentleman has preferred, in dealing with men and with nations, rather to make enemies than to make friends; history will decide what contribution the right hon. Gentleman may have made towards that hatred and suspicion of England among peoples abroad which has roused such lively alarm in the minds of great experts in foreign policy like Lord Salisbury and Lord Rosebery; and history will have to solve the problem whether that greatest and most disinterested of British statesmen, William Pitt—who forms the noblest picture, perhaps, in national history—won more glory by fighting the battles of the nationalities of Europe against the Imperialism of Napoleon than the right hon. Gentleman has gained by suppressing the liberties of two petty republics whose liberty we have again and again pledged ourselves to preserve. What I wish to deal with are practical, simple, and direct issues. It seems to me that there can be no work more noble in its character than to make suggestions which will tend to remove some of the bitter horrors of this war, and ameliorate the condition of chaos which we see in South Africa to-day, and which will tend to produce friendship and good will between two races which will have to live side by side in the future. What I have to bring before the House is whether John Bright and Ireland have taught us the true lesson that force is no remedy, or whether we are to accept the modern theory that the only way of obtaining a willing acquiescence in our rule—which is the aim of this policy, if it has any aim whatever—is to crush out the individuality of men and peoples, and to dictate without conferring or listening to their views, or claims, or protests, and to force upon them our own scheme of government whether they like it or not. We have already seen some of the results of this policy. The reply of Lord Salisbury to the telegram of the President of the Orange Free State and the President of the Transvaal Republics when Bloemfontein was captured seemed to me at the time a reply which menaced a prolongation—an embittered prolongation—of this
834
war. I venture to say that it would have been better if, without accepting the terms suggested in the telegrams of the two Presidents—which, of course, were impossible terms—Lord Salisbury had shown that there was some hope of some of the ideas cherished by the Republics being accepted in some form or other by Her Majesty's Government. Then I come to the proclamation by Lord Roberts annexing the Orange Free State. What does that say? It says that it was expedient that the Orange Free State should be annexed, and should form part of Her Majesty's dominions. This proposal was not prefaced by any statement or any declaration stating the grounds, for such annexation, and there was no communication with the Orange Free State, so far as I can trace, at all on the question. There was simply an absolutely autocratic statement that the Orange Free State should cease; to exist, and that it was expedient that it should be annexed. [Ministerial cheers.] Hon. Members opposite: cheer that statement, but is there any State document of a similar nature recorded in history which does not preface: such annexation by a statement of the grounds on which such a policy is: declared to be expedient? But will this policy of force be successful? Will the Transvaal and the Orange Free State be peaceful countries when you have completed this work of military ascendency. But your problem, as you put it yourselves, will be to assert the supremacy of a peaceful, industrial community of: Englishmen, Germans, Frenchmen, and others over perhaps the fiercest, most determined, and most dexterous fighting community in history, as the Boers during, this war have proved themselves to be. We know that before the war the Uitlanders were reluctant to become citizens of the Transvaal because they incurred military responsibilities, and they were equally reluctant to join in the agitation and the revolution planned by Mr. Rhodes, because their only desire was to be let alone to acquire wealth and bring it away with them to this country. Do you think that the prevailing spirit will not be exactly the same when you have restored order in the Transvaal? Do you think when the Uitlanders have returned to their occupations that they will not be just as reluctant to be turned into soldiers, against their habits and

835
choice, and against their interests, as before? Do you think they will hold their own with such a warlike and enterprising race as the Boers? It is suggested that you may turn your soldiers from the colonies and elsewhere into settlers in South Africa, and some of them are to form a garrison to maintain British supremacy in the Transvaal. I should like any hon. Member who attaches any importance to that proposal to read the article written by Mr. Edward Dicey in one of the recently published reviews. If they know anything of the subject, they will know that it is practically impossible to make agriculture a paying industry for Englishmen in the Transvaal. It is an insoluble problem, the difficulties of which cannot be surmounted. You may spend money in planting those men there and equipping them, but the only result will be that in a very short time the men you have planted on the soil will drift into the towns and become hangers on at public-houses. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] If they cannot carry on the agricultural industry successfully it is economically certain that they will drift into the towns and become waifs and strays. You have turned out all the Dutch railway men, and I think, if they committed no acts of war, that was a very questionable policy. You may create a few industries, and get employment for a few Englishmen in that way, and in that way your garrison might bestrengthened; but is it possible under this régime of force and this idea of suppressing the vigour and vitality of a race which has been keeping England at bay for eleven months that any scheme of that kind without the presence of an enormous army from England will succeed in curbing the impatience of this resentful race, eager and capable of initiating at some time or other, probably when England may have her hands full with difficulties in other countries, a policy of revenge for what they consider the grave injustice to which they have been subjected. I believe there is only one cure for this state of things which is likely to bring about amicable relations between Englishmen and Dutchmen, and which will save England an enormous expenditure of life and treasure in dealing with this great problem, and that is to recognise frankly and fully the right of these people to maintain in some form or other that independence of which they are now
836
being deprived. It may be an unpopular, and it certainly is an unfashionable, doctrine at this moment to support the policy of Mr. Gladstone in 1881. I am one of those who believe that that policy is the only true policy having its cornerstone in history and in human nature. But it was carried out under most unfortunate circumstances, and it would have been wiser if Mr. Gladstone had initiated his policy upon his advent to power in 1880. That would have been an intelligible and wise policy in 1880, whereas the moment when it was initiated was most unfortunate, and was surrounded by unhappy circumstances, which detracted from it. Yet, even so, it was not a failure, but had all but effected a complete pacification of South Africa. We have the testimony of many public men upon this point. Mr. Statham, one of the ablest recorders of South African contemporary history, said that this policy
"signally successful, as shown by the condition of South Africa in 1887, a year in which South Africa was nearer to political union through the action of natural forces than it has ever been before that date or since."
The House will probably recollect the very remarkable expression of opinion made by Lord Randolph Churchill, who visited South Africa in 1891, and who was at that time largely in sympathy with Mr. Rhodes and his policy. The view he expressed at that time was that, after studying the question, he had come to the conclusion that a mistake had been made in considering that this policy was a wrong policy, and he said—
"So far from being an impolitic surrender, it had by its wisdom soothed the exasperation of Dutch sentiment at the Cape, and had made a real concord between the Dutch and English races possible."
In venturing to make suggestions from a practical point of view, I wish to do so without offence or irritation to those who take the opposite view of this question. I do not for a moment assert that we can reinstate the same state of things as existed before. That is absolutely impossible, but I do say that we ought to recognise what causes had stood in the way from 1887 to 1889 of the carrying out to successful fruition of Mr. Gladstone's policy, and that the same cases are now still standing in the way, and are preventing us from arriving at the sort of

837
solution which Mr. Gladstone contemplated. What was standing in the way I then, as now, is that great conspiracy, of which Mr. Rhodes is the head, to capture the gold mines of the South African Republic and turn the whole place into a gigantic monopoly out of which enormous wealth may be secured for a limited few: at the risk of imperilling the happiness and well-being of the many. Having; regard to the fact that English tradition points to the preservation of the rights of individuals to private property, I do not suppose that the private property of the Dutch in the Transvaal will be interfered with. You will, therefore, have much the same class of people coming to the front and taking part in the future life of the Transvaal. You will have the same leading Englishmen and Dutchmen gradually resuming their places. In the presence of such conflicting interests and sentiments, why on earth cannot we take this course instead of entrusting the settlement of this difficult question to the one man who has created the maximum of irritation and difficulty in the Transvaal and Orange Free State—Sir Alfred Milner? Why cannot we adopt the wiser policy, which is suggested not by myself but by that eloquent man whose loss we feel so much in this House, Sir Edward Clarke, who said that it would be wiser if some broad-minded and patriotic men were sent out to solve and settle and determine these tremendous issues and bitter controversies in South Africa in a generous spirit, and so arrive at a solution which would bring Dutchmen and Englishmen into harmony in the future t That is the solution for the immediate future of the Transvaal which I venture to suggest. What, again, is the issue between the Government and the wiser leaders in Gape Colony, between the Colonial Secretary and Mr. Schreiner, who has so admirably and so temperately represented the composite and conflicting interests there? Mr. Schreiner has made a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government that the same policy should be adopted in dealing with these dangerous and perilous issues in Cape Colony which Lord Durham so wisely adopted years ago in Canada. On the other hand you have this policy of refusing to listen to any of the demands of the Dutch people and of laying down the principle of lifelong disfranchisement and universal
838
punishment. We know very well that the lifelong disfranchisement advocated by the right hon. Gentleman—which he said was not a punishment too severe to apply to the Cape rebels—has been practically overruled by the Ministry which has succeeded Mr. Schreiner's Ministry. What was really the suggestion which the Cape Ministry laid before Her Majesty's Government? It was that they should adopt Lord Durham's policy. Lord Durham in Canada was face to face with a similar exasperation of one race against another, and face to face with the same vehement denunciation of anything like clemency for the beaten French majority. And what was his decision? His decision was absolute pardon and amnesty for all but a few. Even those individuals who were sent out of Canada at that time were able to return within three or four years, and were actually elected to the first Dominion Parliament after the Union Act of 1840. Lord Durham as keenly appreciated the necessity of securing the ascendency of the British race and of British policy in Canada, as the right hon. Gentleman or Sir Alfred Milner does in the case of South Africa, but Lord Durham absolutely refused to secure the supremacy of the British race by tactics or proposals which would be liable to be represented as an electoral fraud, depriving the people whose fate he was determining of the right to share in the government of their country. He looked to the influence of perfectly equal and popular institutions in effacing distinctions of race and removing disorder and oppression. That is also the suggestion from Capo Colony to the British Government, and it seems that it is to be practically pushed aside. I may, perhaps, be treading on dangerous ground in even alluding to measures which are now actually under discussion in the Cape Parliament. I would be the last man to say a word which would be prejudicial to the interests of Cape Colony, but I ask whether it is not plain that the course of events is now being controlled from Downing Street, and on that ground only I venture to lay before the House of Commons some considerations as to the policy we should adopt in South Africa with regard to the Cape rebels, and that that policy should be the policy of Lord Durham instead of the policy laid down in the last Blue-book. One of the strongest arguments advanced by the Schreiner Ministry in the Minute they

839
laid before Her Majesty's Government was that it was undesirable to punish wholesale, as the universality of such a punishment would rob it of its deterrent effect by converting a grave sentence of the law into a measure of political vengeance. That is an argument of enormous strength which should receive the fullest consideration of the Government. Mr. Winston Churchill, who seems to have inherited the keenness of insight and the courage of his brilliant father, in dealing with this question, advocated a generous and forgiving policy to these unfortunate men, who, he said, were only traitors in the legal sense, and had obeyed a natural instinct in joining men of their own blood. [Hon. MEMBERS: Oh!] I am quoting Mr. Winston Churchill, who, I believe, is a not undistinguished member of the party opposite, and I venture to think that the breadth and generosity he has shown in the letters he has written about the war will stand to his credit, no matter to which party he may pledge himself in future. I would wish to press this further point. There are more than 450,000 Dutchmen in Cape Colony, but it is only alleged in the Blue-book that 10,000 of those men have been traitors, some of them in the comparatively venial sense described by Mr. Winston Churchill. We have now to consider this fact. Owing to the wisdom of Mr. Schreiner and many other leaders of that side of politics in the Cape we have the vast mass of the Dutch in Cape Colony standing loyal to this country and absolutely abstaining from joining in the war. That is a tremendous fact, especially when it is remembered that the universal opinion among the Dutch in South Africa is that the war was unjust and unnecessary, and that though begun on the pretext of franchise, it was really directed towards the extinction of the independence of the two Dutch Republics. Are we to offer no reward or show any consideration to the vast number of loyal Dutchmen in South Africa who have remained loyal to this country 1 Would it not be a wiser policy to reward their loyalty by a generous policy and not by a policy of wholesale disfranchisement? A policy of this kind is not a policy of punishment, as was pointed out by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition the other day. It is rather a policy of political proscription, and the
840
result can only be the creation of a new race of real Dutch helots in South Africa, when the war was started on the sham plea of rescuing British helots. The raid is fresh in the minds of many hon. Members. What happened then in regard to the rebels who-rebelled against the perfectly lawful authority of the Transvaal Government, and who were just as much rebels as are the Cape Dutch to-day? I remember the Colonial Secretary praising the magnanimity of President Kruger in refraining from punishing those men with the extremity that he was by the laws of the Transvaal and by International law fully and absolutely entitled to use against them. The right hon. Gentleman now mocks at the idea of allowing red-handed rebels in Cape Colony to enjoy the franchise any longer or to share in the government of the country. But what did he do then? Within a few weeks of President Kruger amnestying these men the right horn. Gentleman recommended a series of reforms, one of the very first proposed of which was the extension of the-franchise within the Transvaal to the very men who had acted as red-handed rebels, and had revolted against the perfectly lawful authority of the Transvaal Government. That seems to me to be a salient illustration of the unreason of this, policy. In working this noble instrument —the British Empire—which ought to be-used for the advancement of human happiness, human freedom, and human welfare throughout the world, we should remember the simple doctrine, "Do unto-others as we would they should do unto us," and that every other race has an equal right to live and enjoy the full benefits of being upon this earth. If we deal with all races and all questions in that spirit I venture to say we shall not have so often displayed the bitter animosity against this country which now prevails, and that we shall have more often words like the noble words Kossuth uttered at Southampton, when welcomed back in 1851, after the glorious, struggle that he made for the liberty of Hungary. Kossuth then said he had learned to look always on England as the Book of Life that taught the nations how to live. Are we now to make England, at the end of the nineteenth century, the Book of Death to individual and national liberties, and a bye-

841
word among the nations for suppressing a spirit which, after all, is worthy of admiration and respect? I do not know whether any words of mine will have the least weight with this House or with Her Majesty's Government, but I have tried, so far as in me lies and without offence, to lay before the House what seemed to me to be some reasons for adopting a more generous policy towards these people than that which has been put forward, not forgetting the wrongs they may have done, but striving to remember this fundamental truth, that the best way of curing these evils is by elevating, not by crushing, the human race. I venture to say that if we turn to the lessons of the last century, looking first to the policy of Lord North, and, forty years later, to the noble results of the wiser and more generous policy of Lord Durham, we should remember in dealing with these Cape rebels the lessons of Lord Durham, and deal with the grave difficulties in the Transvaal in the manner indicated in the weighty and wise words, uttered at the commencement of this session by Sir Edward Clarke.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. Tanner, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
*SlR J. COLOMB: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member who last spoke, in his remarks upon the situation in South Africa, or to say anything that could have been said during the session on any Vote of Supply or in any debate that has taken place. I wish to take the only opportunity of the session to say a few words on the general question of Imperial defence. The procedure of this House is such that this is a question absolutely precluded from being considered as a whole during the session, and it is only on the Appropriation Bill that you can look at it in its main aspects. When the Army Estimates are before the House we pretend that protection against invasion and the defence of the colonies is not a purely Naval question; and when the Navy Estimates are under consideration we are obliged to pretend that no Army exists. Therefore we are precluded from dealing with the broad principles of British defence. What I chiefly want to touch upon is the fact that while the procedure of this House debars discussion on the general prin-
842
ciples of defeuce, there is no Minister and no Department of the State that is responsible for dealing with British defence as a whole. The defence of the Empire is worked in several water-tight compartments. The Army is worked on one line, the Navy on another, the defence of the colonies is carried on on independent lines, while there are several armies under the Foreign and Colonial Offices. In addition to that there are military forces in all the self-governing colonies which can never be touched upon or discussed in the House, except in separate Votes. It is true that we have a Defence Committee of the Cabinet, but that Defence Committee cannot be regarded as responsible to this House for its acts, and its policy—if it has one—can never be discussed here because its members receive no salary as a Defence Committee,, and we can never challenge their action. That is the excuse for my troubling the House at the present moment. The most remarkable character about the Appropriation Bill, if you take it over a series of years, is the prodigious growth of the expenditure of the United Kingdom for the protection of the whole Empire; and that is becoming more emphasised and more marked every year. This year, of course, it is abnormal on account of the war, but I am taking the normal expenditure, and the fact was recently dwelt upon with great lucidity by the hon. Member for Dundee. That being so, another question suggests itself, namely, that while this enormous expenditure of the United Kingdom is growing, the trade and revenue of the United Kingdom is not increasing in any corresponding degree. That is a remarkable fact, and justifies my drawing attention to it on the Appropriation Bill. But when I turn to the outside Empire I find a different state of things prevailing. There is no such increase of expenditure in behalf of the protection of the Empire, but there is an enormous increase in its trade and revenue. I do not want to weary the House with figures, and I will merely deal with the self-governing colonies during the last thirty years. During that period the expenditure of the United Kingdom on the Navy for the protection of all the interests of the trade of the British Empire has more than tripled, while the increase of the sea trade of the United Kingdom has not been more than 50 per cent. But during

843
the same period the aggregate sea trade of the self-governing colonies—wholly independent of that of the mother country—has increased by 133 per cent. And be it noted that the sea trade of the self-governing colonies, independent altogether of any interchange with the United Kingdom, is now many millions in excess of the whole sea trade of the Empire of Russia. In the same period of thirty years the increase of revenue of the mother country has not been more than 50 per cent., while the aggregate revenue of the self-governing colonies has more than quadrupled. In fact, the aggregate revenue of the self-governing colonies now is half the entire revenue of the United States of America. Take another point—the dominion of the sea. The protection of sea trade is as vital and necessary to any single part of the Empire abroad as to the United Kingdom. That will not be denied by any colonial citizen. Let me point out how the burden of the protection of this sea trade is borne. Twenty-eight per cent, of the revenue of the United Kingdom is spent on the Navy for the protection of the Empire's trade; and only ·3 or 3–10ths per cent, of the revenue of the whole outlying Empire goes as a contribution to the Navy for the protection of the sea trade of the Empire. In another form, out of every £100 of revenue raised in the United Kingdom, £28 is spent on the Navy; while out of every £100 of the aggregate revenue of the outlying Empire, 6 s. per cent, only is paid as a contribution for the protection of its sea trade by the Navy. In other words, the United Kingdom bears a proportion of ninety-three times more of the Navy expenditure than the outlying Empire. I think anyone who has studied this question for some years must be forced to admit that this state of things cannot continue. The point is to find a remedy. We must sooner or later, and I think sooner than later, face this question, difficult and delicate though it be, of the distribution of the burden of empire throughout the Empire. One day you have a naval fever and spend everything for the Navy, and another day you have a military fever, and spend recklessly for the Army. I trust it will be distinctly understood that I am not suggesting that this Empire can be run on the cheap; there must be an enormous expenditure, but I do question whether we get value
844
for our money. The question which I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the contribution to the expense of protecting the Empire. It is a matter which we must take notice of, and cannot avoid taking notice of, and under these circumstances, I think, instead of dealing with the question in bits, as at present, we should have a bigger policy of settled co-operation, and an organised system to provide for British security throughout the world. We can only approach this question in mutual confidence between our self-governing colonies and ourselves. The time has long gone by for anything like dictation on our part, and what we have to do is to take the colonies more into our confidence, and I think the time is opportune for calling a conference for considering the matter. The war has brought this thing to a head. It has given a most conclusive proof that all parts of the Empire mean to stand or fall together. It has established beyond doubt in the face of the world the solidarity of British sentiment and the craving for British union. It has shown that the will of the colonies has outstripped the will of the Ministers at home. It was not a question of the machinery of Government and the suggestion of Ministers, but of spontaneous rush and desire on the part of colonial peoples, that produced the forces from all parts of the Empire for service in South Africa. That broke down all the political theory upon which the government was formed for the colonies. The whole of the constitutions of our colonies only recognised passive defence as the extreme possibility. All that laws recognised was that the forces raised in the colonies were to be used and used only for the defence of their particular territory, but, in the circumstances of the war, a larger view was taken, and the education derived from the war has brought home to the sons of the Empire all over the world the fact that they must look beyond their territory, and can only live in real safety by sharing the common burdens of Empire. They have shed their blood and treasure for the cause of union. They have voluntarily and spontaneously in this war taken upon themselves the burden of Empire, and they have proved their title to more confidence being placed in them, and to be taken more into real partnership with the mother country.

845
That being so, I appeal to the Government to consider whether, under the circumstances to which I have referred, and when the war is finished, the time has not arrived for looking ahead and looking to the future policy; whether it is not time for the Government to consider the advisability of inviting the colonies to take part in a conference to consider the position. It is said that any suggestions as to holding a conference must come from the colonies. That is an arguable question, which I will not weary the House by entering into, but I must observe in passing that it is only the Imperial Government which knows the dangers that confront our Empire, and knows the real difficulties and strain in which the Empire would be involved in case of war. It is only the Imperial Government which can place before the colonies the whole position of the difficulties and dangers we all have to meet; and to refuse to take action and to shuffle off responsibility by saying they will not ask for a conference, but wait for the colonies to do so, is a shirking of responsibility by the Ministers of this country. No one would propose that the colonies should contribute without giving them some voice in the matter. The question cannot be solved in an abstract way if there is to be absolute combination, as there must be if the Empire is to be safe. There must be an arrangement for bearing the burdens which the defence of the Empire involves. In some shape or form all parts of the Empire should have a voice. The Government thinks the suggestion for a conference must come from the colonies. Now, a remarkable step has been taken by New Zealand. If it is not a hint I do not know what a hint is. The proposal of Mr. Seddon, the Premier of New Zealand, is, briefly, that Australasia shall raise a force of 50,000 men available under certain conditions for service in all parts of the Empire. The general outline of the proposal puts the expenditure at £1,000,000 a year, and Mr. Seddon proposes that the expense shall be shared equally upon the basis of population or some other basis between the mother country and the colonies; the equipment and munitions of war required shall be provided by the mother country, the colonies to pay 3 per cent, upon the capital charge; and that a sinking fund shall be formed from the difference at which colonial borrowings can be made and the amount at which Imperial
846
loans can be raised. He also proposes that a branch of Naval Reserve and Volunteers shall be drilled on the cruisers on the Australian stations, and he advocates the strengthening of the Australian Squadron, and he concludes by asking that a conference shall be held in the colonies, which shall be presided over by Lord Roberts, if ho can be spared, and if not, by some general who has served iii South Africa. In that suggestion there is a very broad hint as to what New Zealand and the Australian colonies think about joining hands with us. The necessity of an Imperial conference is shown by the fact that the Navy is thus treated as a sort of supplementary scheme; but the Navy is the paramount necessity of the Empire, and before we begin to raise the military machinery we have to be quite certain that our naval machinery is sufficient for our needs. That shows the necessity for a conference between the self-governing colonies and the Imperial Government, so that the main principles of Imperial defence should be thoroughly understood, and each point dealt with in its own order in the regular way. I hope, therefore, the House will pardon me, upon the Appropriation Bill, drawing attention to a question which grows in importance every day, and which must be faced. How are we going in future to preserve the safety of the Empire without some arrangement by which all parts of the Empire shall participate? I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently, and I should not have troubled hon. Members with these observations if I had not thought there was very great need for a redistribution of the Imperial burdens.
Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made an instructive and courageous, and at the same time a very temperate speech. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained that while the defence of the Empire was entrusted to a Committee of the Cabinet, the policy of the Committee could not be discussed in the House because it was not represented in the House as a Committee. But that Committee directed the heads of the Army and the Navy, both of which were represented, and the single comment he had to make was that since the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been speaking no one representing either the War Office or the Admiralty had been present to listen

847
to him. They must have known what was taking place through the usual channels, according to the principle of the Appropriation Bill, when all Ministers were supposed to be in attendance, seeing that every Department could be attacked. He was surprised that a speech by such an authority as the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have received no attention from the heads of the Departments directly concerned. The speech was a courageous one, because at this particular juncture, having regard to public opinion, it required courage upon the part of Conservative Members to expose to the people the system by which an unfair portion of the burden fell upon the United Kingdom. There were two points in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which he proposed to deal with with regard to the Navy. It could not be denied that the Navy was as available for the defence of the colonies as for the defence of the United Kingdom, and that our expenditure for the Navy in the present year was £30,000,000. Before many years passed, even if shipbuilding for the Navy was not increased, we must look forward to an automatic increase in expenditure, up to, say, £40,000,000. The points he wished to emphasise were that the whole of this expenditure was as much at the service of the colonies as ourselves, and the whole of it was borne by the people of the United Kingdom alone. He did not take into account the small sums paid for the maintenance of the Australian Squadron or the small amounts from Cape Colony or Natal, as in the true sense of contribution they were more in the nature of grants. Taking population as the basis of calculation, the proportion of the contribution towards thirty millions for the naval services common to the United Kingdom and the colonies should be three millions from the Australian group of colonies and three millions from the Canadian Dominion. He would by no means approach any of our self-governing colonies in any spirit of dictation, but surely we could trust their Imperial patriotism so far as to put the facts before them.
Sir WILFRID LAWSON: I could not help thinking, whilst listening to the speeches which have just been delivered, what we have done, and in what position we have placed ourselves, which has made it
848
necessary to have this enormous appropriation for self-defence. Hitherto we have got on very well, and there must have been something in our consciences to have led to this. I remember in the old days when the Second Beading of the Appropriation Bill used to be taken in a few minutes, the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he might be, would make an interesting speech, and the Leader of the House would explain his policy, if he had one. Now we are rather like sheep without a shepherd. The position reminds me of an incident in the Chino-Japanese war. A telegram giving an account of a battle, stated that just at the moment when the battle began a junk was seen proceeding along the coast bearing the Commander-in-Chief to a place of safety. Private Members under these circumstances must do what they can, and the important duty of a private Member is, I think, to discuss how the national money has been disposed of. We have now the most enormous revenue we have ever had, and the most enormous expenditure. I suppose some day the nation will ask us how this money has been expended and whether it has been expended for good purposes. For the moment, the Government may be called the steward of the national funds, and the question for us and the country is, have they laid out that money well and to good purpose? I do not think it has been laid out to good purpose. I do not think £70,000,000 gone for the slaughter of men of the same colour, the same creed, and the same race as ourselves, is a profitable expenditure of public money. When I say £70,000,000, that is what was quoted the other day, but I suppose nobody doubts that before the finish it will be £100,000,000 or more. We have sacrificed that money to a deity whom the Colonial Secretary calls the God of Battles—a deity constructed out of his own ingenuity, for whom I should have no respect at all. If it is a right and noble thing for us to appeal to the God of Battles and to kill all these people, I am always puzzled to know why the natives were not allowed to join in the enterprise. If it was noble, we ought to have invited them to assist. I have never heard any explanation why it was so wrong for natives to join and right for Europeans. I really think, looking at all that has been going on lately, that by this enormous expenditure, by this system of

849
aggression, by this system of attack, by this system of filibustering, we have entered on a course of ruin. If we look back in history, we find that all great military empires have sooner or later collapsed. It appears to me that we are going the same road. I do not altogether blame the Government and the hon. Gentlemen who support them on the opposite side for this state of things. We have done bad things enough on the Liberal side. We have pandered to the military spirit. I look back only about twenty years to our Egyptian policy. We went and interfered with the Egyptians when they had a revolution in trying to reform their own finances. We invaded them, and there were perpetual battles and massacres for many years. Not satisfied with that, when hon. Gentlemen came into office on the other side they must go to the Soudan and out-do us, I suppose. There they had that glorious day when in the space of two or three hours 30,000 men were shot or wounded, and it was supposed that never in the history of the world had more men been killed in the same space of time. That delighted the whole of this Christian country. That rejoicing was joined in, I am sorry to say, by the leaders of the Opposition. Then alter that we have this Chinese affair. I was interested in the description of the policy in China which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the other day. He described the policy in China as a plum cake policy. Everybody goes and cuts a slice. He does not seem to believe that the Chinese are human beings at all. Now we are meeting with the results of the filibustering policy, in which I do not say we are worse than other nations. All the European nations have been going on in that way. After all this Egyptian policy, Soudanese policy, and Chinese policy, we have this awful war in South Africa—a war which has now become one of crushing out two independent small Republics—a course of conduct which is as bad, in my opinion, as anything Austria ever did in Hungary, or Russia in Poland. Can anybody say that the results we have got are worth all the enormous sums of money we have spent and are spending? Can anybody tell me what human being is the better for this Transvaal war? Myriads are the worse for it. Thousands and thousands have died, and thousands of survivors are suffering torments worse than death from this dreadful policy. The answer to that
850
would be—Well, we have vindicated our power. I suppose we have, but is that a great thing? Is that a glorious thing? Supposing that in a town or village one man was accounted obnoxious, and five men go and kick him to death, do you call that a noble act? In the old days it would have been called a very cowardly thing. In the old days it used to be said, hit a man of your own size. That has all gone now. It is considered the noblest and grandest thing to have sent out an army five times as large as that with which we have had to contend, and we have shown the greatest delight at triumphing over and defeating them with five to one. Why, what are I we doing with these wretched people in South Africa? The whole world is filled with horror at the present moment at the conduct of the Boxers in China. What is their policy? To kill foreigners. Well, what is our policy in the Transvaal? To kill all Boers. [Cries of "No!"] Then what do you fight for? Is it not a policy of extermination? [Cries of "No!"] They are going on, and they are defending themselves. I suppose that as long as there is one man left you will fight him. Is not that a policy of extermination? The difference between that policy and the policy of the dreadful people in China is that they are resisting people going into their country, and we are going vain another country and killing the inhabitants thereof. There seems to be no desire or attempt to stop this dreadful fighting. Day after day we look at our papers, and read the telegrams stating that so many men have been killed here and so many there, so many made prisoners here and so many there. We read with the greatest equanimity, and seem to think it is a delightful way of proceeding. We do not seem to care how long it goes on. I think that any Government that does not try by negotiation to cease this senseless slaughter is a Government deserving of the condemnation of all just and upright men. I said that this was probably the last time that we shall have an opportunity of discussing things in this way. I dare say it is the last time for many of us. Many here will not be seen again on these benches, and I very likely may be one of them. [Cries of "No!"] Oh, yes; they are not absolutely wise in the north of England. But, I say, that being the case, it is all the more important that any of us who has to make his last dying speech and confession should take

851
care that it should be a true one. You may say that this is electioneering. There was a talk of that last week in the debate on the Supplemental War Loan Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire made a speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was electioneering. I want to know what bettor thing anyone can do. Honest electioneering does nothing more than undertake to advise our fellow-countrymen what we believe to be right, true, honest, and just, and I do not know that any nobler thing can be done than electioneering in that manner, not for our own profit but for the profit of the nation. What can be said for the Government that has landed us in this awful state of things? Look at what they will say to the country if they speak the truth. They will say, "We have been in office five years, and as the result we have made a hell of South Africa. We have made a filibustering raid on the people of the country to accomplish that result. We have blotted out as far as we can from our policy the word magnanimity. We have made a jest and a laughing-stock of the word. Magnanimity is nothing more than honour, truth, and justice, and according to the greatest authority in the House of Lords and elsewhere we have contrived to make an atmosphere of hatred regarding ourselves in almost all the countries in the world. I suppose the Government will say quite truly that they did not mean to bring all these evils about. Of course they did not; if they did they would be either lunatics or traitors; but does that exculpate them? Not entirely. A few weeks ago there was a man driving the engine of a London express train. He inadvertently failed to see that the signals were against him, and he ran his train into another standing at Slough. Four people were killed and many were injured. That man's life is blasted. He will never be trusted again. But what have we to say of the Government that has disregarded the signals of danger, disregarded all the warnings, and landed us in a miserable war costing thousands and thousands of lives? I, for one, would far rather be that unfortunate man who drove the engine at Slough than a member of this Government. The point is this. If this Government are maintained in power, if they vindicate all these aggressions they have made, what
852
is before us? Nothing but an endless vista of future war. I know that it is expected that the nation will give its mandate again to this Government. All I can say is, if they do it, so much the worse for the nation. What is the meaning of our confederation together if we cannot oppose this? I say that peace is the very foundation stone of Liberal policy, and if Liberals do not proclaim that principle what are they? Mr. Disraeli long ago said that "a Tory Government was an organised hypocrisy." [An Hon. MEMBER: Conservative.] I beg pardon, "a Conservative Government was an organised hypocrisy." I say that if the Liberal party go to the country and put aside their own doctrine of peace, they are nothing more than a disorganised hypocrisy. I speak for myself, and I do not know for how many more, but I know that I speak for a certain number when I say that they will maintain that policy. I say more. However black things may look now, with them is the future. You may call us pro-Boer, you may call us traitors. I remember the lines of Lowell—
"Call us cowards, call us traitors,
Just as suit your mean ideas;
Here we stand as tyrant-haters,
And the friends of God and peace."
I say here, before the General Election— because I am not ashamed to make an electioneering speech here on anywhere else—I say here in Parliament, as I shall say in the constituencies, that we will protest to the utmost of our power against the gospel of grab which, for the last ten months has been preached in Parliament, in the pulpit, and in the press. We will do that, and we will remind, our fellow-countrymen that while a great authority has said that "the greatest of British interests is peace," a still greater authority has declared that "it is righteousness-alone that exalteth a nation."
*Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I am sorry to have to divert the attention of the House from subjects so important in themselves, and which have been rendered so interesting by the three speeches to which we have listened. If I may venture to say so, in regard to* the speech of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, while saving the interest of my party, I would hope that the mournful anticipations he has indulged in with regard to himself will not be realised, and

853
that he will return to this House to I interest and amuse us with his familiar and genial presence. I feel bound to call the attention of the House at this late period of the session to the position in which the question of the sick and wounded in South Africa is left by the form of the inquiry that has been instituted. It seems to me extraordinary, and, I think, most unfortunate, that a subject in which the people of this country are so deeply interested—more interested, I think, than Her Majesty's Government seem to be aware of—should, in its later and most important phase, have been accorded no adequate opportunity of discussion in this House. It is not my fault if any criticism I may feel bound to offer was not made before in this House—was not made at a time when it might have led, as another criticism led, to an effective discussion. I took the only opportunity that was open to me, and that was through the public press to protest against certain features in the form of this inquiry. The Government, it is true, proceeded to make a change in the status of the Commission, but that change conferred on the Commission none of the powers essential to arriving at a proper conclusion. There has been no opportunity in this House of discussing the constitution of the Commission as a whole. There has been no opportunity of discussing its original constitution by the light of certain facts which were I authoritatively denied from the Front Bench, and subsequently admitted. I do not propose myself to discuss the constitution of the Commission to-night, partly because I think it would be more respectful to a former ruling of yours, Sir, that I should not do so, and partly because I for my part have no desire, now the Commission has been constituted and has gone to work, to criticise its personal con-position on this occasion. There is another question to which I wish to refer, which is far more important, and for which there has been no opportunity of discussion in this House, and that is the powers with which it goes forth. I propose to show that the Commission has been issued divested of all the powers essential to finding out the truth in this matter; and the great, permanent, humane and national interests involved in this inquiry will be imperilled, if not defeated, by the course that has been taken. The Committee, as it was originally called, has been
854
turned into a Royal Commission. But in announcing that fact the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury stated that the change did not confer upon it either the power to take evidence on oath or power to compel the attendance of witnesses. Well, if that is so, the Committee goes forth with its hands tied behind its back, utterly powerless to push the investigation home. Moreover, it goes forth at the mercy of one side and of one interest in this inquiry, and that the side and interest most involved in its own exculpation. What is the exact position? I have never suggested that the whole blame for the state of things that has existed in South Africa devolved upon the Army Medical Department, but undoubtedly it is largely involved. The watchful and far-seeing energy of that Department in its own defence has become sufficiently notorious. It is not criticising the action of the Commission to say that I could give an instructive illustration of this from the curious selection of witnesses that has been presented to the Commission in this country. Is it to be supposed that this energy in its own defence will be relaxed as the trial goes1 on? The Commission has gone to South Africa. There nine-tenths of the evidence is under the control of that Department, or of some Department of the War Office; their hand reaches over the whole field of witnesses. Of course, they will organise the evidence and they will choose the witnesses. There is no organisation on the other side of the case. I myself can give the Commission very little assistance, for reasons I will make clear in a moment. On one side you have this powerful organisation; on the other you have absolutely nothing but the voluntary act of individuals, ninety-nine out of one hundred of whom believe, rightly or wrongly, that they will be prejudiced by coming forward. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, when I brought this subject forward on a former occasion, referred me; to "the very elaborate precautions which the Commission propose to take for the protection of witnesses," and he proceeded to add that he "doubted whether any statute would give a protection so absolute." What are those precautions? I confess I was amazed, when I read them, at the description the right hon. Gentleman gave. They are two. First, witnesses in Government offices will be

855
freed from their obligation of secrecy with regard to official information. Surely that is an ironical precaution. What do witnesses in Government offices know about the sufferings of the sick and wounded in South Africa? And what sort of evidence are we to expect from offices which contain the very Departments which are on their trial in this matter? The second precaution is that the evidence of those who desire it will be taken in private and their names will not appear. This is no protection at all. [An Hon. Member: Why not?] I will tell you. With the Commission holding its sittings, as it will have to do henceforth, in localities where every individual is known, with half a dozen officials at the doors and half a dozen reporters inside, do you suppose you will persuade any man that his name will not leak through to that inner circle of authorities whom he fears. [An Hon. MEMBER: No!] My hon. friend says no. Take the case of the private soldier. He will have to get leave of absence to attend before the Commission; his officers and noncommissioned officers will know all about him, and next morning they will not have the slightest difficulty in identifying his evidence and knowing what he said. But the second precaution is open to far graver objection. Do you suppose for one moment that the public mind, which is awake on this question, is going to be satisfied by even a partly secret inquiry, with any of its proceedings carried on in the dark, and any of the grounds of its conclusions wrapped in mystery? The Commissioners in their opening statement went on to say, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated it here——
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now about to refer to the proceedings of the Commission itself——
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: No, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member began by saying, "The Commissioners in their opening statement" said so-and-so.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be out of order in referring to the proceedings of the Commission.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Then I will keep within your ruling, Sir, by confining
856
myself to stating that the First Lord of the Treasury said in this House that if the Commissioners "are substantially hindered from ascertaining the facts by the absence of compulsory powers, they will not hesitate so to report to the Prime Minister and to ask his assistance in procuring the necessary powers." The right hon. Gentleman stated at the same time that the only means of giving them those powers was by Act of Parliament. But the Commission has gone to South Africa, and this Parliament is over. What is the Government going to do? Does it propose to wait till a new Parliament meets or another session opens, and then pass an Act of Parliament when all the most important part of the Commission's work is done? I am sorry to have to detain the House, but I do not on a question of this kind like to indulge in generalities, and it will make my point more clear if I give to the House certain instances which will show how little chance there is of the Commission getting at the truth in this matter. There are many classes of witnesses. In the first place, there are the officials engaged out there. I have here a letter from a responsible and important official out in South Africa, written some time before my article appeared in The Times, and entirely independent of it, giving an account, with long and exact details, of the confusion, incompetence, and mismanagement, which resulted in three general hospitals going up to the front, but with the staffs of two, the beds and equipment of one and the tents of another; and the red tape which prevented those three elements being combined for the use of the sick and wounded, who were lying and dying huddled together on the ground in the field hospitals. But at the end of his letter—and this is the point—he says —
"I trust to you not to give me away by quoting my name. You know what the result would be to me."
Then there are the officers themselves. They may be young officers, but they are none the less watchful, and their testimony is none the less valuable on that account in regard to things they have seen. I will give two instances. The first is an officer who saw with his own eyes and described j in detail the horrible sufferings of the wounded at Paardeberg owing to the almost entire absence of everything that

857
was necessary. I thought he would come forward and tell his story; but after a couple of months he says—
"I cannot give evidence; I am convinced it would prejudice my future career in the Army."
The second is an officer who was able to speak to at least three of the most important incidents to which I myself bore testimony in this House, and who saw many other things equally bad if not worse. I took down this officer's detailed statement in South Africa, and read it over to him. I hoped he would come forward, but ho has returned to this country, he has gone into his club, and now he says—
"I cannot come forward. I know what it would be. I want to get on in the Army. And then there is the regimental feeling. The fellows would say, 'What did you want to come forward for and make complaints?' and I should not be able to stay in the regiment."
Then there are the private soldiers themselves—the rank and file of the Army— whose fear of "the authorities" is traditional, and who look on any and every inquiry as a court-martial. From these I have had plenty of letters—I will not say "innumerable" letters—giving most important details, but all, with hardly an exception, begging that their names may not be mentioned, as they know the consequences. The Commission went down to Netley. ["Oh, oh."] It so happened that I had a correspondent at Netley, a relative of a respected Member of this House, and in every way trustworthy and reliable, who wrote to me giving detailed and very strong statements from several of the men there, and saying—
"Had I been longer at Netley and set about it systematically I could have had plenty more statements, but directly the soldiers think anything they might say might come out nothing would induce them to speak, as they told me they would only get punished if they complain about anything. I am much afraid the Commission will do no good, if they were disguised as orderlies and lived the life for a few days they would find out the robberies and neglect and inhumanity in South Africa, but just going, perhaps well heraded, will be absolutely useless."
That is from a person who has been constantly for the last month in Netley amongst the patients there. But I do not see much similarity between the statements I have in my possession and the reports of the evidence taken at Netley which I read in the public press. Then there are the doctors or officers of
858
I the Army Medical Corps and the Army nurses, who have worked so strenuously, and many of whom have died, under conditions which were unfair and unjust and unnecessary, and to which they ought never to have been subjected, and who would be able to point out how many of those conditions might have been avoided. Apart from the fact that by a sustained misrepresentation ray statements have been taken as an attack on the Royal Army Medical Corps, what is the position of the doctors? They depend for their advancement upon a private report of their superior officers. Do you suppose that they would be induced voluntarily to come forward and make complaints? Promotion in the commissioned ranks of the Army Medical Corps comes very largely by selection. Then there are the non-commissioned officers and orderlies of the same Corps. They too depend very largely upon selection by their superior officers; and I do not think I am urging anything unfair when I say that if you have to depend upon those men voluntarily coming forward to make complaints against their superior officers you will not get their evidence. Then there are classes of civilians who have been engaged in these military hospitals. There are the so-called Army Reserve Nurses — a very important class. From those I have many letters giving exact and startling details; but all of the writers with one single exception asked that their names might be suppressed lest they should not be chosen again for work which their bravery and devotion made them eager to obtain. Lastly, there is the most important class of all—the civilian doctors who have been engaged in military work. Most of these belong to that large floating element of the medical profession which very often, through no fault of their own, are without fixed employment, and who are looking to the continuance, in one form or another, of this employment under the Army Medical Department, upon which their livelihood depends. I have taken at random a letter from one of those doctors, written to a relative before my articles appeared in The Times, and quite independently of those disclosures, and he states—
"I assure you that there is a great deal of nonsense being talked at home about the perfect arrangements made for the sick."

859
—this was written six weeks before my letter appeared in The Times—
"The wounded do better, as there is a certain halo of romance about the thing which is not the case when a poor devil drops out on the march suffering from dysentery, pneumonia, or typhoid. People at home would not believe me if I told them that two days ago eighty sick men passed south through this station in open cattle trucks with no one in charge. They had been travelling by road and train for three days, and had had no food for thirty-six hours. Two of the men were dying."
The doctor's relative who sent me the letter says, "Of course, you will not give the name of the writer." I have other independent letters of the same kind written to relatives and also a large number written to me direct, containing much evidence which would be of the greatest possible use to the Commission, but in all cases the difficulty with regard to disclosing the name comes in. I must give one more case—amongst the civilian doctors. A considerable number of these civilian doctors are endeavouring to obtain permanent appointments in connection with the Army Medical Department. I have a long letter from a civilian surgeon with regard to a hospital not at Bloemfontein — he sends me a copy of correspondence bearing out his statements—which is one of the worst cases that has been brought to my notice. This doctor says that in this hospital there was a complete lack not only of medical comforts but of drugs; that these were easily obtainable close by; and that he applied for them over and over again, but was refused. He says that men died in his hands solely for want of those drugs, and at the end of his letter he states that he is applying for a permanent appointment under the Government, out of which he will be able to make a decent living, and adds—
"I mention the fact in order that you may know of my position, for I am a married man with [such and such a number of young children. I cannot afford to let my family starve, and therefore I pray of you not to disclose my name to the authorities."
When I put the case of these classes to the First Lord of the Treasury as persons whoso present livelihood and future interests would prevent their speaking out, the right hon. Gentleman replied that "the suggestion was an unmerited insult" to them. To my mind the real insult to these people lies in placing them in a position in which they must either hold back the truth, or suffer—as they
860
believe, rightly or wrongly, they would suffer—personal loss or prejudice.
Mr. IAN MALCOLMsaid the hon. Member had been the recipient of these communications,, and had honourably observed the secrecy desired by the writers. But why could not that same secrecy be observed by a judge of the High Court?
*Mr. BURDETT-COITTTS: I have already told my hon. friend why in South Africa that secrecy cannot practically be maintained. I have given these cases in order to ask what is the remedy the Government propose for this state of things. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am far from saying that the future interests of these persons would be injured or would be prejudiced by their coming forward to give evidence. My whole point is that they believe they would be so prejudiced, and that that conviction, which cannot be eradicated, will prevent the Commission getting the whole of this valuable evidence. The only way in which this fatal result can be avoided is to relieve them of the responsibility of voluntarily coming forward by giving the Commission compulsory power to call them as witnesses; and I believe there is only one way by which, if they do come forward, you can get at the whole truth, and that is by giving the Commission power to take evidence on oath. There is only one more question, but it is a very important one. How do the Government propose that the Commission shall obtain the evidence of the colonial soldiers who have been invalided home and returned to the colonies? I want to call attention to a very painful incident which I think deserves the consideration of those hon. Members who have been in the habit of making the splendid voluntary aid given by our colonies the subject of the perorations of almost all their recent speeches on the war. I am going to read a letter which is reproduced in the Western Mail, an Australian paper, and which has reference to a number of Australian troops who came down from the front to Cape Town and went to Maitland Camp. The letter is written by a well-known resident at Cape Town, an Australian by birth, and was addressed to Sir Alfred Milner. It is dated Cape Town, 22ni May, and is as follows—
"Sir,—In the cause of humanity, I feet obliged to bring under your notice the treat

861
ment received by about 100 sick and wounded Australians and New Zealanders, who are at present in the Maitland Camp. These men are sadly in want of warm and decent clothing, many being without overcoats and blankets, and their repeated requests for these have not been attended to. The condition of these men is such that, were it known to the people of Australasia, I feel certain a big reaction would set in against volunteering for any future campaign. This, I feel sure, is not the intention of the British Government.…So bad is the lot of these men (and, no doubt, other Volunteers) that a number of them have been sent back to the hospital suffering from a relapse; besides which the men who are invalids are not tit to sleep on the ground, especially at this time of the year, much less when they are compelled to do so without blankets, waterproof sheets, and a great-coat,…There are men at present in Maitland Camp whom the doctor instructed are to have milk diet, but they cannot obtain any milk… I sincerely trust your Excellency will have the condition of my countrymen improved at your earliest convenience.
"I am your obedient servant,
"HENRY MCDONNELL."
This letter was asking Sir A. Milner to go and look at the condition of things on the spot, and the House will remember that Maitland Camp is within two miles of Cape Town. The following reply to the above letter was received—
"High Commissioner's Office,
"May 28, 1900.
"Sir,—I am directed by his Excellency to acknowledge receipt of your letter, and to say that the matter to which you direct his attention, and of which he was entirely unaware, appears to be exceedingly serious, and will receive his immediate attention."
The paper goes on to say that the circumstances under which those men departed for Australia were—
"regarded as the most serious fault of the Imperial authorities. At two o'clock on the day the 'Australasia' left Cape Town, the Australians who lay in their beds at Woodstock Hospital were told that they would have to leave for their own country in two hours time. Many of the men had not been out of bed for weeks, and few had a penny, though much was owing to them all in the way of arrears of wages, while their outfits were all incomplete. The case of Bottomley, the Queenslander, who is still confined to his bed, was, it is alleged, a particularly serious one, and his comrades pleaded that he might be allowed to remain in the hospital; but the officials stated that they had received their orders, and the men would have to go. It was pointed out that Bottomley could not walk, and that he was absolutely penniless, but the authorities were; obdurate. At last some of the convalescent soldiers were able to obtain some money, and to hire a cab for the man, who, it is stated, was I regarded as being in a dying condition."
This was in the month of May, at Cape Town—the base of supplies, the depôt
862
of the concentrated resources of the mother country, with all her wealth, and all her welcome of these distant sons of hers. If these things have been done in the green tree, what has been done in the dry? What need to inquire into the doings of Departments at Bloemfontein which have permitted these shameful things at Cape Town? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any assurance that the evidence of these men who have returned to their homes will be taken. And now I will come back to the main object of my speech, and will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is really too late for the Government, by some means of which I have no knowledge myself, to confer upon this Commission the compulsory powers and the power of taking evidence on oath, which are essential to its carrying on an effective inquiry and arriving at the truth. I venture sincerely to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a more serious and a little more sympathetic view of this whole question than it appears to mo has characterised his attitude towards it hitherto. I ask it on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people in this country who undoubtedly take a serious view of it. I ask it on behalf of our common humanity and of our national strength, of the future welfare of our soldiers, and of the popularity of the military service among those classes from whom the rank and file of the Army, who have suffered most in this matter, are drawn, and in a country which must always depend for its military strength on the voluntary spirit. I have felt bound to criticise the inherent defects of the form of this inquiry instituted by the Government. If the party system in this country has come to such a rigid phase that it is not permitted to a Member of Parliament to take that attitude when a great national object is in view, it is a bad thing for the country. I do not believe that the party with which I have acted will so far fall from their legitimate position of representatives of the people of this country as to treat perfunctorily or petulantly a subject which involves great humane and national interests.
The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. Balfour, Manchester, E.): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down ended his speech with a lecture addressed to myself in the first place and

863
my colleagues in the second place, and to the party of which he professes to be a member, for our want of sympathy with the cause which he has advocated—all but himself. [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and an HON. MEMBER: Hitting below the belt.] If the hon. Gentleman accuses me or any other Gentleman on this side of want of sympathy with the wounded and suffering in South Africa, ho has shown himself utterly unworthy of the party to which he belongs or with which he pretends to act. What does the hon. Gentleman found his accusation of want of sympathy upon? What is his basis? Is that an accusation to be lightly hurled by a member of a political party against the rest of his party without justification? What is the basis of it? If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me I am quite ready to sit down.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Sir, what I stated was that, in my opinion, the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman— not the party—had shown a want of sympathy upon this question.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman confines his attack to myself, apart from my colleagues, I can afford to treat it with contempt, and I do treat it with contempt. There is absolutely not the slightest justification for it. He has stated no justification for it, and as a mere question between himself and me, as he has chosen to make it so, I do not think it worth while occupying the time of the House upon it. Very well; I pass from that purely personal question, in which I take no interest, to the larger issues which the hon. Gentleman has raised in the course of his observations. I should never have gone beyond those issues had not the hon. Gentleman chosen, in the concluding words of his speech, to make a most unwarrantable and outrageous attack upon myself. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, bases his attack upon what has occurred upon the character of the Commission which has been appointed; and what is his attack upon the Commission appointed? As far as I understand, it is confined to the assertion that as that Commission is incapable of taking evidence compulsorily and upon oath, it cannot carry out its duty. The hon. Gentleman appears to me to have utterly misunderstood both the history of previous Commissions in this country and of
864
the legal powers we could have given this Commission. There have been very few Commissions in this country which have had the powers he asks to be given in this case. [Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: There was the Pigott Commission.] The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, whom I see opposite, appointed a Commission to look into a most critical collision which took place between the police and people connected with a strike—a collision in which lives were lost, and in which party passions were violently aroused—I do not mean political party passions. Was that a satisfactory Commission? It was a Commission precisely of the kind which this Government has appointed to look into this matter.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking of the Belfast riots?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I am not. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me he would have known I was not speaking of the Belfast riots. I was speaking of the late Home Secretary, who had nothing to do with the Belfast riots. That Commission took evidence, and took it successfully, and the question was fully investigated. There have been many other Commissions equally successful. I want to put this point before the House and the hon. Gentleman. He wishes a Bill to be brought in to make this a Statutory Commission—like the Parnell Commission, I suppose, which appears to excite the admiration of the hon. Member for South Donegal, or like the Commission which inquired into the Sheffield case.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to state the object of my former interruption? I understand that the Belfast Commission was turned afterwards into a Statutory Commission because it was found that it would not have worked otherwise.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is possible, though the facts are not present to my mind; but I do not see how the interruption is relevant, because I never made any allusion to the Belfast riots. The Commission I was referring to was that which had to do with the Featherstone riots. But supposing we had a Statutory Commission. That

865
statute could not be extended to the Cape, it could not be extended to Australia. It would have had no power to compel witnesses to come from either of those countries. [HON. MEMBERS: Why not?] Of course, I do not say this House has not a right to override—— [Nationalist cheers.] Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's allies are on that side. This House, of course, has power to suspend the constitution of every self-governing colony. Are those the powers you wish to exercise? This Legislature has the power, and it is the only Legislature which has the power to appoint a Statutory Commission. This Legislature has the power, no doubt, to override every self-governing colony in the Empire; it has the right to pass what laws it chooses for any part of the Empire; but such a thing has never been heard of in the history of this country since self-governing colonies were established, as that this Legislature should pass a statute to compel colonial witnesses to attend upon a Commission appointed by this country, and to give that Commisson the power to administer an oath. This is the policy which I understand the hon. Gentleman seriously advocates with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the first place it is an impossible policy, and in the second place it is a futile and absurd policy even from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman himself. What are the hon. Gentleman's objections to the Commission that has been appointed? His objections are these—that the witnesses are afraid to give evidence, that whether they be soldiers or civilians their cowardice is such that no protection given to them by this Commission—anonymity, secrecy, anything else—is sufficient to enable the truth to be extracted from them. That is the hon. Gentleman's objection. Before I comment on the character which the hon. Gentleman gives to our soldiers and civilians of this country in South Africa, let mo ask him how that difficulty would have been got over by a Statutory Commission.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: If the right hon. Gentleman asks me the question I will answer it. I have already answered it in my speech. I say if the Commission have compulsory powers to call witnesses it relieves the witness of all responsibility for coming forward; and if they have powers to take evidence on
866
oath the witness must, of course, tell the whole truth.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What the hon. Gentleman pointed out to an astonished House was that the fear of consequences in the minds of these witnesses was such that they could not be expected to tell the truth. I want to know how that is to be cured by the Statutory Commission which he desires, even if the Statutory Commission had, or could have, powers of calling witnesses in South Africa or in, the colonies, as the hon. Gentleman appears to desire. I have heard—not often, I admit, from these benches—but I have hoard in this House attacks upon the moral courage, upon the honesty, upon the probity, and upon the public spirit of our soldiers and civilians, but I have never heard an attack from any quarter of the House like that which the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to make.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I repudiate absolutely the suggestion. I made no attack. I gave specific instances of men who said they were afraid of coming forward and making their names known.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We differ, I suppose, as to what an attack consists of. I call it an attack upon a man to say that he knows the truth but dare not say it. The hon. Gentleman does not call that an attack. However, we need not quarrel about words. All I meant to indicate to the House was that the hon. Gentleman had scattered broadcast the accusation over both civilians and soldiers serving us in South Africa that they were afraid to come forward, that they were afraid to tell the truth, because of the consequences to themselves; and, not content with attacking them for this incredible meanness and cowardice, he accused their superiors of not less meanness, not less incredible meanness, in suggesting that honest evidence honestly given would destroy the chances of a man being promoted.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: As the right hon. Gentleman continues to make these accusations against me, I must answer them. I particularly stated that I did not believe that these would be the results to these witnesses; the point was that they feared that those would be the results.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I withdraw absolutely my charge that he accused the authorities of the incredible meanness of

867
which I thought he had accused them. I withdraw that. All he does is to accuse the subordinates, the witnesses, of the meanness of fearing the result and of the folly of supposing that the result would ensue. I do not know that he makes his case much better, though I am very anxious not to misrepresent him. I must say that the hon. Gentleman is peculiarly unfortunate in the character of his correspondence. He has read out a certain number of letters. He tells us that they are mere specimens of hundreds or thousands.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, no.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite will allow the hon. Gentleman to contradict me himself. [Several HON. MEMBERS: He has done so.]
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I never said anything about hundreds or thousands.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Innumerable. I do not exactly know the numerical valuation that is to be given to the adjective innumerable—the adjective used by; the hon. Member.
*MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I did not; say innumerable. I said I would not say innumerable.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Many, but not innumerable; but, after all, why should hon. Gentlemen quarrel with me on this subject, considering that the whole case depends upon the number of these letters? If the letters are not representative, what is the use of quoting them in this House? What do they come to? What is the value of them? It is only because they potentially represent hundreds or thousands that they are of any value whatever. If it is merely Mr. A or Mr. B who thinks the hon. Gentleman is a proper representative to send these communications to, it does not matter to me, to the inquiry, to anybody; but if the hon. Gentleman wishes us to assume that the letters he has read out are mere specimens of a vast number which he might have read out, then I say he has a most unfortunate set of correspondents, and, since the time when anonymous accusations were put down in the lion's mouth at Venice, I do not know that any gentleman has been so favoured as the
868
hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has, I believe, already been called as a witness. He has already given all his own evidence, and he has been cross-examined upon his evidence. Is it a fair use of his privileges as a Member of this House to come before us and the tribunal of the country while the inquiry is still on, after his own examination, when there is no opportunity of cross-examining him or criticising him, and giving this supplementary appendix to the evidence which he has already given? Is that the way he thinks a great inquiry of this sort ought to be treated? Is that the value he puts upon his own evidence? Is that the manner in which ho thinks this great tribunal, the House of Commons itself, ought to be treated? If the hon. Gentleman had attempted to take the course he has taken to-night in reference to any case being tried before one of the judicial tribunals of this country, he would have been stopped, first by the Speaker, and if not by you, Mr. Speaker, by the general public opinion of the House. I am convinced that the general public opinion of the House takes the same view of this question that I do. It is not fitting, it is not in the public interest, that at the time when an inquiry is going on we should be debating this question in circumstances in which alone debate can take place in this House, having ex parte statements made from this side or that side of the House, without the power of examination, without the power of cross-examination, without having any witnesses before us, and without the power of coming to an impartial verdict. That must be left until we have the result of the inquiry before us. I confess, though I have not altogether approved of the line the hon. Gentleman has taken in this matter, I have entirely agreed with him from the beginning as to the necessity of an inquiry, before he ever raised the question in this House. I have all along taken the view that there should be an impartial and thorough and systematic inquiry into the matter. I have always held that view, and so far I agree with the hon. Gentleman; but when I heard him tonight, after having asked for an inquiry, systematically depreciate the character of every witness that has come before the Commission; when I heard him complain that the truth is not to be expected from the inquiry; when I heard him tell the House that the organisation of the

869
Medical Department was so rigid in South Africa that nobody would come forward to give evidence; when I heard him state that witnesses were prepared either to abstain from giving evidence or to give false evidence because their worldly career was at stake; when I heard him discredit this inquiry which he has asked for from the beginning—then, for the first time, I began to doubt the evidence the hon. Gentleman himself has given in this House. I am perfectly frank with the hon. Gentleman. I have absolutely believed everything he has told us about the facts he has seenand about the conclusions he has drawn in South Africa, though I confess I thought the picture was probably a one-sided one; but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, by the speech he has made to-night, has shown such evident anxiety as to the result of the inquiry that is to be held. I think the course ho has taken is not only contrary to every sound Parliamentary tradition, but to every suggestion of common sense. I think that, for the sake of the cause which he himself professes to have at heart, there cannot be a more imprudent procedure than to attempt to throw these unworthy suspicions and aspersions not only on the Commissioners themselves who are making the inquiry, but upon every witness, except himself, who is likely to be heard.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I should never have thought that a discussion on a question of this kind was one which was likely to have excited any party passion or personal recrimination. I should have thought that on a question of this kind no passion or temper, such as we have unfortunately seen exhibited on more than one occasion, would have been displayed. I regret that from the day when the hon. Member for Westminster made his first statement in the House, there has been exhibited on the Treasury bench an amount of temper which was not creditable to the right hon. Gentleman or anyone holding his position. I think that throughout this business we have been placed in an unfortunate position. The hon. Member for Westminster brings before the public and the House, animated by the spirit of public duty, certain information which he thinks ought to be laid before the House and the country, and as the result of that we have given us, not very spontaneously or cheerfully, a Commission of Inquiry.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Commission
870
was decided upon before the hon. Member for Westminster made a single statement upon the subject to this House.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am not in a position to know when it was decided upon. I only know when it was announced. The public announcement of the inquiry in this House is what I refer to. When the Commission was announced it was announced with certain powers which many of us felt were inadequate. I think it was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and those who agreed with him in appointing this Commission, looked upon its scope from far too narrow a point of view. They regarded it as an inquiry into an attack upon the Army Medical administration in South Africa. The reference to it was to inquire into the treatment of the sick and wounded in South Africa, and that was a very narrow reference, and practically referred only to the Army Medical Department.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reference was to inquire into the treatment of every sick and wounded man in South Africa. You cannot go further than that.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: If it refers only to the medical persons engaged, they are all under the Army Medical administration, and therefore the reference has a comparatively narrow object. The civilian doctors are part of the Army Medical administration and the reference is simply to the treatment of the sick and wounded. This inquiry ought not to have had so narrow an object. I am sure every Member of this House looks upon the inquiry from a broad point of view, as an inquiry which ought to be gone into as the public wish it to be gone into, in order to get at the whole truth as to the treatment of our soldiers and the causes of disease. No charge or attack is made on the Army Medical staff, or on any surgeons employed in South Africa. All it is wanted to ascertain is why these unfortunate soldiers in South Africa did not have adequate treatment. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. Member for Westminster brought a charge of meanness against persons unwilling to come forward as witnesses, anyone who has had the conduct of a public institution knows that one of the most difficult things is to get witnesses to come forward. That? difficulty is in the way of every inquiry that is held in connection with any large

871
hospital in the country, or in any large public institution. Still more does it dog the footsteps of a great organisation such as we have to deal with in this matter. But, beyond this, there is the esprit de corps which I am glad to say exists in the British Army, to its honour, and men do not like to come forward and make complaints against their associates. Gentlemen who have been in South Africa have spoken and written to me in the same spirit as the hon. Gentleman, and scores of others have been written to, and therefore the attack of the right hon. Gentleman on the hon. Member for Westminster is not one which ought to be approved by the House. I have no question of party consideration in this matter, and I never had. I have always looked upon it from the point of view of the humanity which belongs to my profession, and I have never desired to obtain the slightest tittle of party advantage out of it. But I desire that it should be sifted to the very bottom in order that we should get at the truth, and that we should have full knowledge of why these heroic soldiers were allowed to die in those bell tents at Bloemfontein under shockingly bad conditions. That is a thing which every citizen has a right to know, and to demand that it should be probed to the very bottom. The whole question is a much bigger question than it has appeared to the House in the speeches that have been delivered. We have had in this unfortunate campaign in South Africa an amount of disease beyond the ordinary experience of such wars. Up to 7th July we have lost more than 3,000 from typhoid fever, and tested by the percentage of mortality given by Lord Roberts, that means that there have been between 15,000 and 16,000 cases of this disease among our troops in South Africa. I am understating rather than overstating the figures, for I believe more than 3,000 have died up to this time. The records have been published up to the 7th July, but since then many others have died of this disease. It is an enormous blot on this campaign that we should have something approaching 15,000 cases of typhoid fever among our troops, and it shows that there must have been something wrong in the medical administration in South Africa that no provision was made against this almost certain outbreak of disease, although the War Department was warned in the public
872
press and by other means that such an outbreak would take place. The fact is, that every village and town that our troops had to march through was known to be a source of infection and disease before they arrived, and yet under these circumstances adequate precautions were not taken to prevent its spread. The result is, that if we compare the deaths from disease up to the present time and the deaths from disease in the Franco-German War we find that we have lost from disease a much larger proportion than the Germans lost. The German army consisted of 887,000 men, or four times the size of our army in South Africa. Up to 7th July—and it is now even worse—we lost 20·7 per thousand of our men from disease, while the Germans, with all the rigour and severity of the winter around Paris, lost only 13·7 per thousand. That shows that our administration is faulty, that the medical something is wrong in administration of the army in South Africa, and that the cause of this outbreak ought to be inquired into by this Commission. What I complain of is that the right hon. Gentleman, in drawing the reference to the Commission, did not make it sufficiently wide to enable the Commissioners to inquire into the causes that brought about this enormous prevalence of preventable disease among our soldiers, in order that we might be in a position to avoid a similar condition of things in any future campaign for the benefit of the men who fight for their country. Finally, I would say as regards the whole position that this is an example of the want of foresight which the administration has shown throughout this war. The same spirit that led them to cable to the colonies that they wanted infantry and not mounted men, has brought about loss of life among our soldiers. The same want of foresight that led them to think that 40,000 or 50,000 men would suffice to finish the war, is the same want of foresight that has brought about this disaster to our soldiers. From the beginning to the end of this campaign the Government have not shown adequate foresight, either in the management of the war or in taking precautions for the protection of the men whom they sent out to fight.
*COLONEL BLUNDELL: I wish to say that I believe that this Commission will arrive at a proper

873
conclusion. I venture to say that no soldier would look at this question as reflecting solely on the Medical Department. It is a question whether what my hon friend the Member for Westminster saw at Bloemfontein was caused by the Medical Department, or whether it was unavoidable, or might have been avoided by some different arrangement of transport. There are two parties interested in the case, the staff of the Army and the staff of the Army Medical Department, and between the two the Commission will, I am sure, arrive at the truth.
MR. PICKEBSGILL: I desire to offer a few observations to the House on a single point, namely, the condition of the troops now serving under General Bundle in South Africa. I should not have troubled the House with the matter if I had been met fairly and reasonably by the War Office. I asked last week and again to-day for some information as to the condition of these troops, who upon credible testimony have been reported to be starving. I asked also whether even now at the end of three months any steps had been taken to provide these troops with adequate food. I received an answer which I will not characterise as I think it deserves, because if I did I should probably exceed the limit of Parliamentary debate, but it was not answer that should have been given to a Member of this House on an important subject, and I may add that the substance of the reply was not helped by the jaunty manner in which it was given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The substance of the reply was that the War Office knew nothing of the condition of General Bundle's troops, and that they did not intend to inquire. This is a matter which has excited the most painful interest and anxiety in the public mind, and especially in the minds of those who have relatives serving under General Bundle, and in those circumstances I do submit to the House that the answer which I received showed something very like callousness of feeling towards our brave private soldiers in South Africa, and also a want of respect towards this House and the country. It is monstrous that the War Office, which is discredited and mistrusted by the nation, should adopt an arrogant tone of this kind when a simple inquiry is addressed to it by a Member of this House with regard to the condition of troops who, as I have said, have
874
been, on credible evidence, reported to be starving. If the House will stand that from the War Office, it will stand anything. A description of the troops serving under General Bundle for the last three months inevitably recalls to mind the description of our troops in the Crimea now nearly half a century ago. I limit this inquiry to the special case of the troops serving under General Bundle, but I am not at all sure that the case of those troops is an exceptional one. In fact, I have been assured by those who are far more likely to know than I am that the case of General Bundle's troops is not an exception. I desire to limit my inquiry to that case, however, for the simple reason that I have in my possession an extract from a letter written by a soldier serving under General Bundle, and I thought, also, that by limiting the matter in this way it might be possible for me to give a precision to the inquiry not possible, for me at least, in the case of other troops. I therefore come to the actual condition of the troops under General Bundle. In the first place, before I refer to my private information I should like to draw the attention of the House to an account given of the condition of the troops by a distinguished and very accurate correspondent—Imean Mr. Hales, the war correspondent of the Daily Newt. On the 30th July the Daily News published a long letter from Mr. Hales, dated the 11th July, which stated—
"The men are absolutely starving. Many of the infantrymen are so weak that they can barely stagger along. They are worn to shallows, and move with weary, listless footsteps… General Rundle faces the work in front of him with men whose knees knock under them when they march, with hands that shake when they shoulder their rifles—shake, but not with fear; tremble, but not with wounds, but from weakness, from poverty of blood and muscle, brought about by continual hunger. Are those men fit to storm a kopje? Are they fit to tramp the whole night through, to make a forced march to turn a position, and then to fight as their fathers fought next day?"
That is how Mr. Hales described the condition of the troops. I have an extract from a letter written by a private soldier in a famous regiment now serving under General Bundle. It is dated the 24th April, and he says—
"We are nearly starving. We have not seen a piece of bread for three weeks, and we have been living on biscuits about the size of Spratt's dog biscuits, which contain bran instead of wheat."
On the 20th May he wrote that the allowance of biscuits per man per day

875
had been reduced, and that the troops were fairly starving. The letter continues—
"The other day they gave us one and a quarter biscuit to last ns for the day. Next day was worse—a half pint of warm coffee for breakfast, but nothing else. I have been so hungry that I have eaten tea-leaves after they have been used."
Referring to the day on which the battle of Senekal was fought, he says—
"We get up at 3.45 a.m. Breakfast consisted of one and a quarter biscuit per man; then we marched and arrived at camp at 10 p.m., having been without food or water for eighteen hours."
On the 26th June he states that things were as bad as ever, though they then had received tents, having previously had to sleep on the ground without any protection from frost, cold, or wet, and on one occasion he states that his coat was frozen to his back. The only practical question which the House has to consider is, was this state of things necessary or inevitable? I suppose that we shall have the usual answer from the War Office that it was inevitable. Mr. Hales has, however, anticipated that reply. He said that General Bundle's troops were not isolated, and that supplies could be got to them. He asks what became of the provisions, and ho answers, "Ask at the snug railway sidings," and he adds that with ordinary management the food which had been got to Cape Town ought to have been within easy reach of our troops. Let us see how it stands with regard to General Bundle. General Bundle has been on duty for three months and has a front reaching from Winburg to the Basutoland border. Winburg was the terminus of the railway, and Mr. Hales himself showed how supplies might be obtained, because he himself obtained them. Ho relates how he rode to Winburg station with a companion, taking with them two Cape carts. They took train at Winburg and went down the line to Cape Town, got their supplies, came back to Winburg and brought the supplies into General Bundle's camp, without an escort. If Mr. Hales and his friend could get supplies in this way, I want to know how it was that supplies for General Rundle's troops could not have been obtained from the same base by the same means. The Under Secretary for War told us the other day, as illustrating the difficulties of getting supplies in South Africa, that it was as difficult as if London were depending on Rome for its
876
food. I respectfully say that that is an inapt and misleading illustration.
The UNDEB SECBETAEY of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Wyndham, Dover): That phrase was used in a letter written by Mr. Burnham, the scout.
MR, PICKEBSGILL: I do not quite appreciate the force of the hon. Gentleman's interjection, because the phrase was part of his argument, and he adopted it by way of explaining the difficulties of the position.
MR. WYNDHAM: That was an illustration used by Mr. Burnham, the scout, and I would prefer that the hon. Gentleman dealt with Mr. Burnham.
MR. PICKEBSGILL: That interjection is entirely unnecessary and irrelevant. It does not matter who originated the phrase. The Under Secretary was defending his Department, and in order to explain the difficulties of the situation he adopted the expression that it was just the same as if London were depending on Rome. I repeat very respectfully that that appears to me to be an inapt and misleading comparison, for this reason. We know that supplies for the troops arrived at Cape Town, and what we want to know is why, apparently, they had not got further than Cape Town and why they had not got into the neighbourhood of our troops, for whom they were intended. There has been one noble tradition of the British Army, to which I think is to be attributed not a little of its success, and that is that in times past our generals were careful of the food of their soldiers, and they recognised the military truth that "an army marches on its belly." They kept up supplies and fed their men well. In one quarter of South Africa it is only fair to say that that tradition has been kept up. There is one man—a man who I venture to think has received, up to the present time at any rate, scant justice in this country—I mean Sir R. Buller, who has worked on the old lines of keeping up supplies and feeding his men well, and there is accumulating evidence that in other parts of the stricken field in South Africa, under different direction, the men have, to put it plainly, been starved. I want to know how that happens, and who is responsible for it. My object in putting this question to the Under Secretary for War was a very modest one. It was confined to the

877
specific case of General Bundle's command. It was a perfectly proper question, it was couched in proper Parliamentary form, and I was only following the recognised traditions of this House in putting it. I have to complain that to that question I have received no reply. I press for an answer to that question now, and if the War Office is to be allowed to put us off in this jaunty manner, I shall feel that at least I have tried to do my duty as a Member of this House.
MR. WYNDHAM: The lion. Member has put a specific question to the War Office, and, as the representative of that Department, I am bound to reply. The hon. Member has taken exception to the replies he has received from my hon. friend and myself; but if he makes complaint as to the answers, I make no complaint as to the question. The question he put as to whether the Government could say anything to relieve anxiety as to the condition of the troops under General Bundle has been present to the minds of us all for eight or nine days. The mail arrived on Saturday and brought letters from newspaper correspondents and others describing how at the time the letters were despatched General Bundle's troops were on very short rations indeed. The hon. Member is not the only one who has received such letters. I have received two or three myself from relatives and friends serving with General Rundle, but I am bound to say that while they described the circumstances they did not accept the conclusion that they were such as could have been easily avoided. They appreciated the difficulties of carrying on a campaign in a mountainous district. The hon. Member has commented on the answer he received that no official information was to hand. That is true. Unless General Bundle—who, by subjecting his troops to these undoubted hardships, has achieved in four weeks one of the greatest successes of the war—had, instead of prosecuting his arduous operations to their successful end, sat down and written his report, it would have been physically impossible for the information to have reached this country. The earliest information reached this country on Saturday, and unless General Bundle had suspended operations in order to write his report it would not have been possible for us to give any explanation. There is an unwillingness on the part of the hon. Gentleman to accept the explanation we
878
gave, and he complains of the tone and substance of the replies he received to a perfectly natural question. No slight was intended to the hon. Member, nor any disregard of the position and responsibility of this House, when I informed him, with, I believe, courtesy, that we had no information until a few days ago. The War Office had no information as to the facts when I answered the hon. Gentleman a few days ago; but having received private letters from close relatives and friends, I was unwilling to withhold the circumstances to which they alluded, and so I added that, owing to the nature of the country and of the operations, General Bundle's troops were exposed to hardship. The questions of fact are hardly in dispute. The hon. Member has said he believed that the troops under General Bundle four or five weeks ago were on half or even quarter rations; but in order to illustrate the difficulties of transport, I may say that when Lord Boberts arrived at Germiston, before Johannesburg, the troops had to be ready to fight a battle without an ounce of food; and if they had not broken into Johannesburg they would have suffered hardships of a most deplorable character. That is incidental, not to this war alone, but to all wars. A daring strategic plan means that the amount of food must be really measured by ounces. So many days were allowed to strike the blow. If it succeeded all was well, like Cromwell's attack on General Leslie at Dunbar, and if it failed, there was a retreat like Napoleon's from Moscow. The question is, has all been done that could have been done in this campaign? That is a question of the most solemn importance, but not one that can be profitably decided on the Appropriation Bill. It must be investigated fearlessly, jealously, curiously, and to its uttermost depths. That is what every man in the House and in the country must feel. But the examination must be made when the evidence is available, and all the reports on the operations are in our hands, in a cold and impartial spirit. It was asked what there was peculiar in these operations and in this country to make it likely that the troops would be reduced to half rations. A glance at the map answered the question. There was the railway fifty or sixty miles to the west of an Alpine district, in which the operations were being conducted; and there were 15,000 troops distributed over an

879
are of 150 miles. The hon. Member says if the war correspondents at the front could take provisions, why should not the whole army be able to take full rations. I might go a ten miles walk to-morrow with a sandwich in my pocket, but it does not follow that I could find sandwiches and bread and cheese to feed an army of 15,000 men distributed over an arc of 150 miles. There must be an enormous organisation working without a hitch to do that. There was a very good organisation; but it had no direct railway communication, and the supply route by road was threatened by an enemy who had already overwhelmed one isolated force after another. It should be remembered that General Rundle, the circumstances of whose force have attracted attention owing to the last mail which has arrived in this country, was the chief staff officer of Lord Kitchener during the whole of his operations up the Nile. For years everyone at home and abroad had been lavishing praise upon the administration of that campaign as far as the transport was concerned. [Mr. MACNEILL: No, no. It was extremely hard work.] The hon. Member really did himself an injustice by these interruptions. Now are we to believe that a man of that capacity, whose transport and food arrangements in Egypt excited the admiration of the whole world, has failed egregiously in South Africa, or that there has been a bad service from the Home Government, or that Lord Roberts would fail to bring that fact to our knowledge? These are things to be studied in the future. Let us find out, if we can, whether better provision can be made for a campaign in a mountainous country, at such an enormous distance from our base, and with only a 3ft. 6in. railway running for 500 miles from our secondary base. All we know is that we have four months provisions for every man in South Africa, and that we have appointed officers whom we believe competent to feed these troops. We realise, as some hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in the debate do not realise, what the work of the Army needs, and I hope that in a few weeks time the work of the War Office in considering the whole campaign will begin.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he wanted to ask the President of the Board of Trade several questions with regard to matters which had been discussed in the House on pre-
880
vious occasions. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that some time ago he made a promise that he would insist upon the P. and O. Company complying with the law. He had been anxiously waiting to see what action the President of the Board of Trade would take. He observed from the papers that the chairman of the P. and O. Company had made the statement at a meeting of the directors of that company that if they were to comply with the Act of Parliament, which provided that the lascars should have 72 cubic feet of space on board ship, that would mean a loss to the P. and O. Company of nearly £20,000 a year. That meant chat the P. and O. Company had been swindling the seamen at the rate of £'20,000 a year. Moreover the chairman of the P. and O. Company challenged the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to commence proceedings against the company in order to have the law tested. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to say definitely what had been done in regard to this very serious matter. He found that thirty passengers on the outward bound P. and O. steamer the "Rome," which arrived at Gibraltar on Monday, had been placed in quarantine for ten days in consequence of two lascars suspected of having the plague having been put on shore from the "Rome" before she left the Royal Albert Dock. The two lascars died, and one of them when taken to the hospital was suffering from plague which it appeared had broken out in the ship in consequence of overcrowding. He had repeatedly pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the danger not only to the lascars themselves, but to the people of this country, of having the plague brought to our shores in consequence of the insanitary condition in which these men lived on board ship. It now appeared that the crew of the "Rome" had been in quarantine, and one man had died in the Albert Dock and two in the hospital. That ought to tell the right hon. Gentleman thas it was time to take prompt action, and insist, as far as ho could, that the lascar seamen should have proper accommodation, and that that accommodation was kept in a sanitary condition. A short time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the provisions that were supplied to seamen on board British ships.

881
He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House that night that he himself had no control over the quantity of the provision supply to seamen on board British ships. He (Mr. Wilson) would dispute that contention, and prove that the Board of Trade had some control or some right to interfere with regard to the quantity of provisions supplied to seamen on board British ships. This question of the quantity of the provision supply was a very important one. At the present time there were a number of complaints made by shipowners of the desertion of seamen from British ships in foreign ports, and no doubt the shipowners were always ready to blame the seamen for these desertions. They said it was due to drunkenness on the part of the men, and that British seamen allowed themselves to get into the hands of the crimps at foreign ports, and caused a great deal of expense and inconvenience to the shipowners. Ho would prove that it was entirely duo to the manner in which the British shipowners fed the sailors on board their ships. The articles of agreement issued by the Board of Trade, which the crews had to sign, provided a scale of provisions containing twenty-four items — water, broad, beef, pork, preserved meat, preserved potatoes, preserved vegetables, flour, peas, rice, oatmeal, dried fruit, butter, molasses, vinegar, pickles, etc. But if the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiry of his Department he would find that in almost every case, instead of the men getting the twenty-four items provided for in these articles of agreement they only got eight—three quarts of water daily, 1 lb. bread daily, 1½ lb. beef four times a week, 1¼ lb. salt pork three times a week, ½ lb. flour three times a week, ½ pint of peas three times a week, ⅛ oz. tea daily, ½ oz. coffee or chickory daily, and 2 oz. of sugar. That completed the list. Ho had had the cost of the scale of provisions supplied by British shipowners to the sailors carefully estimated. He ought to say, however, that the men employed on the largo liners were treated differently, and wore fed liberally and well. He meant the White Star, the Cunard, the Castle, the Union, the Orient, the Shaw-Savill, and the Wilson lines. But outside these liners the sailors were all confined strictly to the scale of provisions he had mentioned, and the cost of it worked out at 3s. 5½d, per week. Did
882
the right hon. Gentleman suppose that it was possible for any man to be content, and remain in the service of these shipowners for any length of time, when fed on such a scale of provisions? Seven pounds of biscuit for a week cost the shipowners 7¼d.; six pounds salt beef (this was remarkable) cost 1s. 3¼d. He questioned very much whether it was beef. That beef was old donkey which was carried over to Antwerp, salted up with saltpetre, and put into casks marked "Best ox beef." It could not buy decent beef He defied anyone to buy decent beef in London under 8d. or 9d. a lb., and it was impossible to supply beef at the rate of 1s. 3¼d. for 6 lb. Salt pork, 3¼ lb. three times a weed, 1s. 0¾d.; flour—the extravagance of the shipowner in supplying the sailors with flour at 1¾d. for the weed; peas, 1¼d.; rice, ½d.; the tea which the sailors get was supplied at 9d. per lb. out of bond, and cost the shipowner 1½d. for the seven days; coffee, 1¾d.; sugar, 1¾d., or a total for the week's supply of 3s. 6d. Ho had hoard sailors say that what they got were dog biscuits, but that was a libel on the dogs, for he found that dog biscuits cost 35s. per cwt., while sailors' biscuits cost only 10s. 6d. per cwt. On board American ships he found a very different state of affairs prevailed. They got a far better provision scale—biscuit, beef, pork, flour, canned meats, fresh bread daily, fresh, preserved, or dried potatoes, tomatoes, peas, beans, rice, tea, sugar, molasses, fruit, pickles, vinegar, corn meal, mustard, pepper, salt, etc. All that cost the American shipowner 6s. 8d. per week. The great difference between the American and the British scale of provisions was that the former was provided for by Act of Congress, and the American seaman knew exactly to what he was entitled and could demand it. But the Board of Trade arrangements were deceiving to the men. The Board of Trade in the articles of agreement provided a scale of provisions which was supposed to consist of twenty-four items. If the men could got that it would be all right, but they only get eight items out of the twenty-four. That was the cause of all the trouble about men deserting at foreign ports. Men who went on board a British ship were expected to work on food which cost 3s. 6d. a week. Of course men could not work on such conditions, and the conse-

883
quence was that they became disagreeable, insubordinate, and on the first opportunity they deserted the ship. He wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do in regard to this matter. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman could do something. He remembered when he tried to get a proper provision scale passed by Act of Parliament the Board of Trade opposed it on the ground that that was a matter that ought to be left to the shipowners. The shipowners had; had the matter in their own hands for the last five years, and instead of there being an improvement things were gradually getting worse. He maintained that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could send out a circular to the shipowners calling attention to the fact that they had only provided for eight articles of food out of the twenty-four in the articles of agreement, and recommending the shipowners to carry out the articles of agreement. He had no doubt that that would do some good, and if it did not have the desired effect the right hon. Gentleman could bring in a Bill next year to regulate the matter. There was another question to which he wanted an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. He had repeatedly called the attention of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office to it, and he was glad to see both the President of the Board of Trade and the Under Secretary for the Foreign Office present, because they might be able to give him some satisfactory answer. He had repeatedly called the attention of the Board of Trade and Foreign Office to the fact that a number of Her Majesty's Consuls in foreign ports had taken upon themselves the responsibility of imprisoning British seamen without any trial; and he wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman what law in this country gave power to Her Majesty's Consuls to have seamen arrested, and kept in prison without trial. The right hon. Gentleman was aware of one of the cases to which be referred, because ho brought it under the notice of the Board of Trade four months ago. A man named Gardner serving on board the ship "Dalblain," seemed to have some grievance with his captain. The men employed in discharging cargo at Iquique made a kind of piece task that they would load a certain number of lighters alongside, and when finished that they would do no more work until fresh lighters arrived.
884
The captain came on the scene, and wanted to know why the men were not working, and ordered Gardner to go over the side and paint. Gardner said—
"I have done my share of the contract, and won't do more until the fresh lighters have arrived."
The captain went ashore and arranged with the Consul that the police should go on board and arrest the man and put him ashore. Whereupon the Consul sentenced him to twenty days imprisonment. At the end of that time, when ho was let out of prison, the man was convoyed by the police on board ship, and at the end of the voyage the captain added insult to injury by charging the man £'10 for prison expenses. The right hon. Gentleman promised to communicate with Iquique, and he wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman what bad happened, and if the Consul had given any explanation of his conduct. He wanted more than that. He had a right to ask the Government to dismiss a Consul from his position who dared to place a British seaman in prison without a trial and to keep him in prison without a trial. That Consul had no power or authority to do anything of the sort. Then he bad the case of the ship called the "South Australian." That vessel was lying at Beira, in East Africa. The crew had been employed during the week working from six in the morning to six in the evening. On Sunday morning they were turned out at six o'clock to wash down the docks. Now, he did not object to washing down the decks on a Sunday morning. That was the rule on board British ships, and the men in question did not object; but while the men were washing the decks the chief officer came along and ordered a certain number of the men to take down the derricks. They refused. They were taken to the captain, who repeated the order, and they again refused. Then the captain entered their offence in the official log, and the next morning the men were ordered to go ashore to the Consul. They went to the Consul's office, and were not taken in together. The captain and two of the officers were with the Consul when each man went in. Each was asked if he had refused to do work, and each said that he refused to take down the derricks, but did not refuse to wash the decks. They were ordered on board the ship, and two hours after they had commenced the performance of their duties Portuguese

885
police were sent on board and the men were taken ashore, one to do twenty days and the other four weeks. He had since seen that that Consul had been murdered, and in all probability it was such imprisonment that had led up to it. These cases of imprisoning British seamen in different ports were occurring almost every day, and the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade would have to take immediate steps to prevent them. He had complained many times, and his complaints appeared to make no difference; but he would tell the British Consuls through the right hon. Gentleman who had control over them, that if they continued to send British seamen to prison, a course would be adopted which would bring them to their senses. Writs would be served on the Consuls for false imprisonment, and they would be put to the expense of coming to England to stand their trial and perhaps to pay substantial damages. Then they would know something about British law and how far their powers went. The House and the country had a right to know whether it was with the approval of the Foreign Office that the Consuls were allowed to take a liberty of that kind. It was a liberty that would not be tolerated in this country for five minutes. If any person in this country dared to arrest a person unlawfully he was bound to say that person would be soon brought to his senses. He wanted to know what the Board of Trade intended to do in the matter. Was he to be told again that the Government had no information and that the matter was still under consideration? Another matter he wished to complain of had reference to the Foreign Office. A steamer was stranded on the Turkish coast and the men were compelled to temporarily leave the vessel. Not long afterwards some Turks boarded the vessel and stole the men's clothes and effects. The vessel was afterwards got off, and subsequently the Foreign Office was asked to demand some compensation from the Turkish Government for the loss of the men's effects. Ho was surprised that this Conservative Government, who prided themselves on their great power and influence in Europe, and who imagined that foreign nations trembled before them, were not able to get any satisfaction from Turkey. They were told that nothing could be done in the matter. Surely the Government might have done more than that. Was that all they could do for the pro-
886
tection of British seamen against brigands on the Turkish coast near the Dardanelles? Was that the best protection they could look forward to? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some more information with regard to the matter, and ho trusted he would be able to say that the Government had not dropped the question, that it was still under the consideration of the Foreign Office, and that strong representations would be made to the Turkish Government with a view to insisting on compensation. He was sorry to say that at the end of the seventh session of this Parliament he could not give the President of the Board of Trade very much credit for having done anything in the way of improving the condition of the seafaring population of this country. In fact, working men in general would be able to give very little credit to this Government for having done much for them. They were too busy with the war, and had no time to look into questions affecting working men. No doubt when the General Election came some of them would be able to remind members of the Government of the fact that in six years they had performed very little for the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman had a splendid opportunity of doing some good for the seamen if he had taken it. The Liberal Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the manning of ships. The Committee sat for two years, and recommended a number of things with a view to improving the conditions of sailors and firemen on board ships. They recommended that no fireman should be called to stoke more than three and a half tons of coal in the twenty-four hours in cold climates and two and a half tons in hot climates. The President of the Board of Trade brought in a Bill to deal with that question. What did the right hon. Gentleman do t His Department issued regulations to the effect that on board steamers of a certain tonnage there should be at least six deck hands—they did not say what deck hands, or whether they should be fully qualified able seamen or bo37s. As a matter of fact many steamers which were under the regulations of the Board of Trade only kept three able seamen and throe ordinary seamen—that was, three boys—and in many instances the boys wore first voyagers, who could not steer, and were not competent to keep a proper look-out. When such regulations were issued, the

887
Department must have been entirely ignorant of the recommendations of the Manning Committee, which went thoroughly into the question. He had seen articles of agreement which did not contain a single word as to the number of firemen and stokers which should be carried. He desired to know if the right hon. Gentleman's Department would insist upon articles of agreement providing for the number of firemen to be carried, as well as the number of sailors. He knew something about the class of men who were engaged as firemen. When the ships got out to sea, two or three hands were taken from the stoke-hole and put into the engine-room to act as greasers —that was, to do engineers' work. There was a revival of the disturbance, and at the first foreign port at which the vessel arrived the men were taken before the Consul and thrown into prison. If the articles of agreement were properly drawn out—as they ought to be—the Board of Trade would see that the number of firemen was properly provided for, and the men would know perfectly well that they could insist on that number being employed. Another serious matter was the discharge of British seamen in foreign ports. The right hon. Gentleman had some power to check this, because the Merchant Shipping Act provided that Her Majesty's Consuls should have the right to withhold their sanction to the discharge of any crew at a foreign port unless the captain could give a proper reason for it. During the three years commencing 1897 and ending 1899 there were 92,000 sailors and firemen discharged from British ships at Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Antwerp. Now these 92,000 men had to make their way to the United Kingdom, and in their places there were engaged 90,000 odd foreigners. They were foreigners who did not reside in this country, and who did not spend the money they earned on British ships in the ports of the United Kingdom. If the seamen were engaged and paid off here instead of on the Continent, at least two millions of money would be spent in British ports. That was a very serious matter, especially seeing that Her Majesty's Government had promised, when they came into office, to place some restriction on foreign immigration into this country. He did not want to be misunderstood on this matter. He was not complaining of foreigners who were resident in this
888
country or who made the United Kingdom practically their home; but he was complaining of engaging 90,000 men in foreign ports and displacing 90,000 British seamen. He trusted that he would get satisfactory answers to all the questions he had asked.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD or TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,)said that as regarded the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, relating to the engagement of foreign seamen on board British ships, he could add nothing to what he had said on previous occasions. The question had been recently discussed in the House and between the shipowners themselves. There was no restriction whatever on the employment of foreign seamen on board British ships, although they much deplored the fact that so many were so engaged, and he would gladly see them replaced by British sailors. But he could not undertake to ask Parliament to legislate so as to compel British shipowners to employ seamen of a certain nationality.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to legislate. What he asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should instruct the Consuls to prevent the discharge of British seamen at British ports.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that when British seamen were discharged at foreign ports the law provided that they should be sent home. And that was all that the law could do. Ho was sorry that the hon. Member had used the expression that the P. and O. Company had been swindling and robbing their lascar seamen.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I mean that.
MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member says he means that. Then anything more unjustifiable could not have been alleged against the P. and O. Company, who maintained that it was quite entitled by law to engage lascars with the accommodation the P. and O. Company provided for them. It was, no doubt, a subject of considerable difficulty, but the matter was now in the hands of the Counsel of the Board of Trade, who wore preparing a case in order to get the opinion of the High Court of Justice, and until that was obtained nothing more could be done. The hon. Member had said that the bad quality of the provisions was one of the reasons why so many British seamen deserted at foreign ports. While both the quantity and quality of the provisions served in the

889
great liners were all that could be desired, he was not without the feeling that in some ships the provisions were not so good. But he was not quite sure that the cooking had not something to do with it.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid it would take a very good cook to cook good meals from provisions which cost 3s. 6d. for seven days.
MR. RITCHIEsaid the lion. Member must be aware that the scale of provisions had nothing to do with it. The scale in the articles of agreement was only a recommendation; it was not laid down as by law. It was a matter of agreement between the crew and the owners of the ship. The Board of Trade had no power in the matter. The skeleton scale which the hon. Member had quoted had been in existence since 1893, and it was proposed to issue a new one in 1901. The seamen had opportunities of complaining if they did not get proper food both as regarded quantity and quality. Their complaints when made were investigated, and if they were found to be justifiable an order was issued, and unless that order were complied with the master of the ship was liable.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid his complaint was not that the men did not get what they signed for. He complained that what they signed for was insufficient.
MR. RITCHIEWhy do they sign for it?
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Because they cannot help themselves.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that if the men could not help themselves the Board of Trade had no power, as it was a matter of agreement. With regard to the action of the Consul to whom the hon. Member referred, he had received a report from him which he was bound to say he did not consider satisfactory. He had again communicated with the Consul, and if it turned out that he had acted ultra vires of course steps would be taken to deal with the matter.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he desired to direct the attention of the House to a local matter which might, however, be of general interest, and regarding which he had given notice to the Vice-President of the Council that he intended mentioning it. It was, he thought, one of the grossest pieces of clerical intolerance which had occurred for a long time. The Vice-President was always asking for specific cases; but when he placed a case of a very serious and important character before him the other day the right hon. Gentleman traversed
890
all the facts. In Holyhead there was a Church school which was overcrowded, and the school board made repeated applications to be allowed to build another board school, but all these applications had been refused. On 11th April, Canon Thomas, one of the managers of the Church school, called two pupil teachers— Roberts and Shone—before him. Roberts had been a pupil teacher for three years, and the custom was to sign the indentures when the pupil teacher began to teach. Roberts, however, wasdenied her indentures of apprenticeship for three years. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge): Yes, Sir.
MR ELLIS GRIFFITH: Was she denied them for two years?
SIR J. GORSTassented.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Then, for two years Roberts was a pupil teacher, and had not had her indentures signed. He should like to have an explanation of that from the right hon. Gentleman. The real explanation was that these pupils teachers were denied their right until they promised to attend church and Church Sunday-school. No other reason was suggested. On 11th April Canon Thomas called Roberts, whom he had been trying to proselytise for two years, before him, and asked, "Are you willing to go to church?" and she said, "No." Then he said, "I decline to sign your indentures, and will give you further time for consideration." He thought that was an iniquitous abuse of a public position. Subsequently Roberts left that school, though the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to a "question seemed to imply that she was still in it. The right hon. Gentleman ordered an inquiry. An inspector was sent to the school, and—would the House believe it —at that inquiry the curate of the parish was present. He did ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep curates out of any inquiries he instituted into the management of these Church schools. In the particular school he was referring to, seven out of nine Nonconformist teachers went over to the Church, and he thought some light should be thrown on the methods which brought about that result. It might be said that he was taking the word of a pupil teacher against the word of the Canon, but he preferred the word of the pupil teacher. The right hon. Gentleman smiled, but he would give an

891
instance of what Canon Thomas did. The choristers of the church had to sign a written promise not to sing solos in meeting-houses or Halls—meeting-houses with a small "m" and Halls with a large "H." Meeting-houses were, of course, the houses of God, and the man who was capable of such conduct as that should not have much reliance placed on his word. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inquire further why indentures were withheld from pupil teachers in the manner he described. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not rely on the word of Canon Thomas, who was the accused person, and he was sure when he had all the facts before him he would administer a severe rebuke to the managers of the school.
SIR J. GOESTsaid that no offence of which the Board of Education could take any cognisance had been disclosed.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Why was an inquiry instituted?
SIR. J. GOESTsaid that the Board of Education had no control whatever with reference to the matters mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman stated that repeated applications were made to Canon Thomas to sign the indentures in question, but there was not a word of truth in that. The school was conducted in a very liberal manner, because the hon. Gentleman himself admitted that there were nine Nonconformist pupil teachers in it, and the liberality displayed by Canon Thomas deserved more recognition than it had received.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating that he had no right to interfere in the particular matter mentioned; but what they desired to know was how long were the Government to continue giving grants out of public money to schools in which such injustice was permitted? What happened, according to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself?
SIR J. GOEST: I made no admission.
MR. BEYNMOR JONES: The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the facts stated by my hon. friend were correct.
SIR J. GOEST: Oh, no.
MR. BEYNMOR JONES: On what evidence does the right hon. Gentleman contradict my hon. friend's statement?
SIR J. GOEST: On the Report of my inspector, the evidence of Canon Thomas, and the Reports sent to the Education Department.
MR. BEYNMOR JONESsaid he understood that Canon Thomas was not examined at the inquiry, but that he sent his curate. What were the Reports sent to the Education Department? They had not been laid before Parliament. On the main fact, however, the right hon. Gentleman did not contradict, on any evidence the House could accept, the statement of his hon. friend that proved injustice had been committed. Two pupil teachers were concerned; one had her indentures signed because she agreed to teach at Sunday-school, and the other had not because she would not agree to the terms laid down by Canon Thomas. He held that it was a great injustice, and it was no good for the right hon. Gentleman to turn round in a case like this and simply say he was not responsible for the management of the school. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the use to which the funds voted by the House was put. The right hon. Gentleman had not said what was the result of his investigation. Was the Canon at liberty to keep the girls dangling for two years for their indentures while all the time he was trying to proselytise them? And was any manager of a school entitled to keep them out of their apprenticeship indentures?
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— RECENT NEWS.
On the Motion for Adjournment:—
MR. BRODRICK: I may read a telegram which has just been received from the Tsung-li-Yamen and communicated to the Foreign Office by the Chinese Minister. It is dated 30th July and runs—
"Foreign ministers all well; supply of vegetables, fruits, and other food stuffs has been repeatedly made to the Legations. The Foreign Ministers and Chinese authorities are now on very friendly terms. The successful termination of the conference for their conveyance under escort to Tientsin is expected, but on account of the recommencement of hostilities at Tientsin code telegrams for transmission to the representatives are considered undesirable."
The following telegram has also been received from Consul Carles:—
"Tientsin, 4th August (via Chifu, 6).
"News of Japanese Legation received by Japanese Consul up to 1st August. Advance of allied forces has commenced to-day."
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 One of the clock.

ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

  1. Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and others).

  2. Cruelty to Wild Animals in Captivity.

  3. Customs Duties (Isle of Man).

  4. Ancient Monuments Protection.

  5. Oil in Tobacco.

  6. Members of Local Authorities Relief.

  7. Reserve Forces.

  8. Volunteers.

  9. Prohibition of Exportation of Arms.

  10. Intermediate Education (Ireland).

  11. Poor Relief (Ireland).

  12. Elementary School Teachers Superannuation (Isle of Man).

  13. Elementary School Teachers' Superannuation (Jersey).

  14. Expiring Laws Continuance.

  15. Public Works Loans.

  10. Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2).

  17. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

  18. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15).

  19. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London).

  20. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

  21. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2).

  22. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3).

  23. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 4).

  24. London (St. Marylebone) Provisional Order.

  25. Paisley Waterworks Provisional Order Confirmation.

  26. Edinburgh (Housing of the Working Classes) Improvement Scheme Provisional Order.

  27. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4).

  28. Post Office Sites.

  29. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10).

  742

  30. Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 5).

  31. North British Railway.

  32. Costa Rica Railway Company, Limited.

  33. Blackpool, St. Annes, and Lytham Tramways.

  34. East London Water.

  35. Ilfracombe Improvement.

  36. London and North Western Railway (Wales).

  37. London and North Western Railway.

  38. London County Council (Money).

  39. Buenos Ayres and Rosario Railway.

  40. Ipswich Corporation Tramways.

  41. Rotherhithe and Ratcliff Tunnel.

  42. Salford Corporation.

  43. Withington Urban District Council.

  44. Sheffield Corporation.

  45. Clontarf Urban District Council.

  46. Aberdeen Police and Improvement.

  47. Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

  48. Bradford Corporation.

  49. Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply.

  50. City of London (Various Powers).

  51. Croydon Tramways and Improvements.

  52. Cumberland County Council (Bridges).

  53. Durham (County of) Electric Power Supply.

  54. Exeter Corporation.

  55. Farnworth Urban District Council.

  56. Halifax Corporation.

  57. Lancashire Electric Power.

  58. Lancaster Corporation.

  59. Liverpool Corporation.

  60. London County Tramways (No. 2).

  61. Market Weighton Navigation.

  62. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Supply.

  63. Oldham Corporation.

  64. Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water.

  65. South Lancashire Tramways.

  66. Wandsworth and Putney Gas.

  67. West Bromwich Corporation.

  68. West Ham Corporation.

  69. Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation.

  70. Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation.

  743

  71. Caledonian Railway.

  72. Margate Corporation.

  73. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland.

  74. London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment).

  75. Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railways (Abandonment).

  76. Hemel Hempstead Corporation (Water).

  77. Morley Corporation.

  78. South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways.

  79. Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway.

  80. Sunderland Corporation.

  81. Alexandra Park.

  82. Bray and Enniskerry Railway.

  83. Christchurch and Bournemouth Tramways.

  84. Coventry Corporation.

  85. Devonport Corporation.

  86. Dublin Corporation.

  87. Great Northern Railway (Ireland).

  88. Hastings Corporation.

  89. Huddersfield Corporation Tramways.

  90. London County Council (General Powers).

  91. London County Council (Improvements).

  92. London County Tramways (No. 1).

  93. London United Tramways.

  94. Metropolis Gas (Prepayment Meter).

  95. Metropolitan District Railway.

  96. Mid-Kent Water.

  97. Newry, Keady, and Tynan Light Railway.

  98. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.

  99. Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport Tramways.

  100. Rochdale Corporation.

  101. Scarborough Corporation.

  102. Southport and Lytham Tramroad.

  103. Southport Corporation.

  104. South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.

  105. Taunton Corporation.

  106. Tottenham Urban District Council.

  107. Workington Railways and Docks.

  108. Bournemouth Corporation.

  109. Walsall Corporation.

  110. Liverpool Overhead Railway.

  744

  111. Saint David's Railway Abandonment.

  112. Fraser Settled Chattels.

  HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY.
  The Queen's Answer to the Address of Tuesday last, delivered by the Lord Steward (E. Pembroke and Montgomery), and read as follows:—
  "I thank you for your loyal and dutiful address. I unite with you in the expression of indignation and deep concern at the tidings of the assassination of my illustrious ally His Majesty the King of Italy, and I will not fail to convey to His Majesty's successor on the throne your sentiment and abhorrence at the perpetration of such a crime, and your sympathy with the Royal Family of Italy and with the Government and people of that country."

  HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF SAXE-COBURG AND GOTHA.
  The Queen's Answer to the Address of Thursday last, delivered by the Lord Steward (E. Pembroke and Montgomery), and read as follows:—
  "I return you my most sincere thanks for your loyal and dutiful address, expressing sympathy with me in the great loss which I have sustained by the death of my beloved son the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The assurance of your warm interest in all that concerns my family, and the declaration of your cordial feelings towards both myself and them, are a source to me of true gratification and comfort."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  I. Report, for 1899–1900—
  Vol. 1. The Report;
  Vol. 2. Appendix to the Report (Secondary Education);
  Vol. 3. Appendix to the Report (Elementary Education).
  II. Reports from University Colleges, 1900.
  III. Schools in receipt of Parliamentary grants (1899–1900).
  IV. Grants paid to School Boards under Section 97 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (1899–1900).
  V. School Board accounts and list of loans (1899–1900).

  Forty-sixth Report of the Postmaster General on the Post Office.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  Report of the progress of the, to the 31st March, 1900.
  TRADE AND SHIPPING OF SOUTHEAST ASIA.
  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.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Return for the month of December, 1899.
  BANKING, RAILWAY, AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report for June, 1900.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  I. Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September, 1900,
  II. Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1900.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report, for the year ended 31st March, 1900.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  I. General Abstracts showing the acreage under crops, also the number and description of live stock in each county and province, for 1899–1900.
  II. Tables showing the extent in statute acres, and the produce of the crops, for the year 1900.
  III. (Migratory Labourers). Report and tables relating to migratory agricultural labourers, for the year 1900.

  BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report for December, 1900.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report for the year 1900, by Sir Henry Craik, K.C.B., on the inspection of higher class schools and the examination for leaving certificates.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  General Orders for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, fixing a scale of fees to be paid by petitioners and opponents of Provisional Orders, and amending the General Orders already issued, made by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons acting jointly with the Secretary of Scotland.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (BOROUGH OF PRESTON).
  Order made by the Council of the borough of Preston, in the county of Lancaster, re-dividing the borough into convenient polling districts for the purposes of Parliamentary elections.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 to 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by Her Majesty to Emily de Charante Lester, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Emily de Charante

  747
  Lester to be at large, on condition that she enter St. Mary's Home, Wantage, Berkshire.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) (SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
    NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  MILITARY LANDS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.

  MONEY-LENDING BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, according to Order.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments be agreed to, I may point out that, though numerous, they do not materially affect the Bill. My hon. friends the Attorney General and Mr. Russell, who had charge of the Bill in the House of Commons, have had a very difficult task in carrying it through that House, but they have done their utmost to maintain the Bill in a condition which will not cause it to be less efficient than when it left your Lordships' House. During the passage of the Bill through this House the Government, and, I think, every Member, were anxious that none of the provisions should interfere with legitimate trading in money, and safeguards were put into the Bill with this object. Some of the Amendments which have been made in the House of Commons are not such as I myself should have suggested, because they remove in part the safeguards which were inserted by your Lordships. But the removal of these safeguards was moved in the House of Commons by a gentleman representing the banking interest, and, having regard to the origin of the Amendments,
  748
  I do not think they ought to be rejected. The Bill will give considerable benefit to those who deserve protection, and cannot materially injure those who carry on a legitimate business.
  Commons Amendments agreed to.

  COUNTY COURTS (INVESTMENT OF DEPOSITS) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name to Clause 2 is intended to remove doubts which have arisen as to whether the summary jurisdiction proceedings which were available for the recovery of poor rate before the passing of the Irish. Local Government Act of 1898 can still be legally adopted. In consequence of these doubts, magistrates in Ireland are beginning to refuse to make orders at petty sessions enabling a poor-rate collector to seize a defendant's goods. They prefer to wait for some clear statement of the law, by Parliament or by a. court competent to decide the question, rather that run the risk of making themselves liable to an action for damages by the defendant. The doubt as to a magistrate's present powers are due to the fact that the Irish Poor Relief Act of 1838 (Section 73) directs that the poor rate—
  "shall and may be collected and levied, sued for and recovered, by such and the same ways and means as the grand jury cess, or the money applotted on the several persons liable to pay the same may be collected and levied."
  At that time (1838) the ways and means for recovering grand jury cess were contained in Section 152 of the Grand Jury Act of 1836. Subsequently these powers were extended in 1850, by 13 and 14 Vict., cap. 82. Additional powers for the collection of poor rate only were also conferred by subsequent Acts, which are mentioned in a footnote an pages 34 and 35 of Mooney's Compendium of the Irish

  749
  Poor Law. It appears, however, that the Irish Local Government Act of 1898 has repealed Section 152 of the Grand Jury Act of 1836 and the whole of the Grand Jury Act of 1850, but has left unrepealed Section 73 of the Poor Relief Act of 1838 and the Acts relating to the recovery of poor rate mentioned in Mooney's Compendium. It is contended by some that the provisions of the Grand Jury Acts are only repealed in respect of the recovery of grand jury cess, and that the provisions of Section 38 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, would operate to keep them alive for the recovery of poor rate. On the other hand, it is contended that Parliament must be held to have had a special object in view in absolutely repealing some of the powers formerly in force for the recovery of poor rate, and leaving others absolutely unrepealed. As the matter stands, magistrates cannot reasonably be expected to decide such a doubtful question at their personal risk, and the object of this Amendment is to provide them with a definite statement as to their legal powers in such cases.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, after line 14, to add, a new subsection as follows; '(2.) For the purpose of raising the amounts required to be raised by Section 51 of the principal Act, every collector of poor rate shall be deemed to have had and shall have the same powers to collect, levy, sue for, and recover all money which be has been or shall be authorised to levy under his warrant as he would have had if said principal Act had not passed.'"—(Viscount Templetowm.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (LORD ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I did not like to interrupt the noble Lord in the course of his speech, but the Amendment is out of order. This is not a Bill brought in to amend generally the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, but to amend certain specific sections, and the topic referred to by the noble Viscount is not one connected with any of the sections with which the Bill is concerned. I may add that my right hon. friends the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General have considered the point, and do not think the sub-section at all necessary.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Will the noble and learned Lord say whether the magistrates in Ireland are safe at this moment in making such orders?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I cannot give a legal opinion as to a matter which it is for the Courts to decide.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3: —
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERYcalled attention to the fact that the first section of this clause provided that Section 54 of the principal Act—
  "shall be deemed to have had effect as from the gale day last before the appointed day under that Act in the case of any tenancy one of the gale days of which is the twenty-fifth day of March."
  The gale day might not always take place on the 25th day of March, and he therefore moved an Amendment to omit the words "the twenty-fifth day of" and to insert "in."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 18, to leave out 'the twenty-fifth day of' and to insert 'in.'"—(The Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery).
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Everyone knows that the general gale day is the 25th day of March, but there are some cases in which the date differs, and this Amendment will deal with those cases. I am quite willing to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of a new subsection in Clause 3. The object of this Amendment is to enable a middleman to obtain from his superior landlord a reduction or allowance in respect of rates if the middleman's tenants have obtained such a reduction or allowance from him under the provisions of Section 54 of the principal Act. The middleman is entitled to this privilege if or so far as his holding is not agricultural land. For instance, if his holding is in a rural district, he is entitled in respect of the buildings, but not in respect of the land. No satisfactory reason can apparently be shown for this distinction.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, after line 18, to insert a new I sub-section as follows:—' (2) In Sub-section

  751
  4 of said Section 54 the words "which is not agricultural land" shall be and are hereby repealed.'"—(Viscount Templetown.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My noble friend has stated very clearly the grounds upon which he moves this Amendment, but I doubt if he quite realises what its result would be if your Lordships adopted it. I suppose there was no question more discussed, when the principal Bill was under consideration, than that of the inclusion and exclusion of agricultural land; and in my opinion there are wise and obvious reasons for making the distinction to which he has referred. The Amendment would have the effect of transferring the benefit of the agricultural grant from the landlord to the middleman, which I do not think is generally desired. I trust that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: If the noble and learned Lord's argument is that landlords are not to move anything which is to the advantage of the tenants, of course I withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: That is not what I said, and I do not think any such impression can be drawn from my remarks.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY: The next Amendment stands in my name. It is drawn with the object of removing ambiguity in the clauses of the principal Act, and it has the sanction of those in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, at end, to insert 'Provided that where a person receiving and paying rent in respect of the same holding would not, if the principal Act or this Act had not passed, have been entitled to deduct more than half the poor rate from the rent paid by him, the reduction or deduction which may be made under the said Sub-section (4), either as extended or not, shall be calculated on the assumption that the occupier was entitled to deduct half the standard amount for poor rate in the standard financial year.'"—(The Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I have consulted my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, and he thinks this Amendment would be
  752
  an improvement to the Bill. Personally, I am not aware that there is any serious ambiguity in the principal Act, but I think the Amendment will meet a point which it is desirable should be made plain.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  LORD TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, the provisions of Clause 4 are understood to be intended to facilitate the raising of rates, or portions of rates, which represent small and practically uncollectable fractions of a penny, in respect of the "excluded charges" mentioned in Sections 56 and 57 of the Irish Local Government Act of 1898. These excluded charges consist of expenses for extra constabulary, compensation for criminal injuries, charges for railways, tramways, harbours, piers, or quays under various Acts, for works under the Relief of Distress Acts, and navigation and public health charges. In these cases the clause proposes that where it would be necessary, for the purpose of raising the exact amount of any charge, to make a rate in the pound less than a farthing, or not being a multiple of a farthing, the rate in the pound actually made for that purpose shall be a farthing, or the next highest multiple of a farthing, as the case may be. So far, the provisions of the clause are not open to objection, and the general object in view is entirely to lie commended. The clause, however, proceeds to provide that the surplus, or sum in excess of the amount actually required, which would in this way be raised in every case, is to be carried to the credit of the district fund of the county district comprising the area on which the rate is made. In other words, it is to be applied in aid or reduction of the general district poor rate. There would be no objection to this if all these charges, like the general district poor rate, were payable by the occupier, because the surplus or excess sum paid by him in one form would be given back to him in another form. The landlord, however, has hitherto in most cases been required to allow the occupier a proportion, usually one-half, of any rate paid by the latter in respect of railway, tramway, harbour,

  753
  navigation, and public health charges; and under Section 54 (9) of the principal Act the landlord must continue to make these allowances so long as the existing tenancy in the holding continues, or until a new statutory term therein begins. It seems, therefore, only fair that every surplus raised in respect of such rates should be so applied as to secure that both owner and occupier should derive equal benefit from it. The Amendment which I am about to move proposes that every such surplus should be carried to a separate account, and applied towards future levies of the same or a similar charge. The Amendment is also so worded as to permit the Local Government Board to sanction the raising of an extra rate representing more than the next highest farthing in the pound, thus providing a fund sufficient to pay the whole of the present levy, and also one or more future levies of the charge. This would be a convenient and economical course where the amount required for a single levy represents a rate of a small fraction in the pound. Further, the Amendment is so drawn as to permit of the clause being applied to charges leviable off the county at large, as well as those chargeable to county districts and other smaller areas. Some county-at-large excluded charges—for instance, for extra police or for a criminal injury—represent such fractional rates in the pound that it is impossible to raise a single levy for them. It may lie said that as any surplus raised under the clause as it stands in the Bill would represent a rate of less than a farthing in the pound, the owner would suffer only small damage by the surplus being credited to the general district poor rate. But this is not the only question at issue, for the application of the surplus in the way proposed in the clause would not only result in relieving the tenant of any payment whatever in respect of many of the smaller excluded charges, but would actually make them a source of profit to him at the expense of the landlord. For example, many of the public health charges referred to in Section 54 (9) of the principal Act are for small sums, and, even when several of them are consolidated under an Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland on the 15th of May, 1899, each levy in respect of them would not represent a rate of half a farthing in the pound on the county district. If, however,
  754
  you raise a rate of a farthing in the pound to pay half that amount, the landlord must allow half the amount raised—not half the amount of the rate, but half the amount raised—to the tenant; and if the surplus is then, as proposed by Clause 4, carried to the credit of the general district poor rate, it is evident that the practical effect is to make the landlord pay the whole amount required for these charges, and to exempt the tenant from any chargeability in respect of them. Similarly, if these charges represented a rate of only one quarter of a farthing in the pound, and if you raise a rate of a farthing for them in each levy, and apply the excess amount in the way proposed in the clause, you will make the landlord allow to the tenant on each levy a sum equal to double the total rate required to pay the whole charge, and the tenant will not only escape any payment in respect of it, but his general district poor rate will be reduced at the landlord's expense by a poundage rate equivalent to a full year's levy of the excluded charge in question. This seems to show that the proposal in the clause can hardly be said to work fairly to the landlord's interest.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 28, after 'or' to leave out all the words to the end of line 31, and to insert ' any higher rate approved of by the Local Government Board; and any sum in excess of such exact amount shall he carried to credit of a separate account, and shall he applied towards paying any future levy or levies that may be required to be raised off the same area in respect of the same or any similar charge. Provided always that when any such charge is no longer required to be raised, any balance then remaining to credit of such separate account shall be transferred—(a) To credit of the County Fund if it was originally raised off the county at large; or (b) If it was originally raised off any smaller area, then to credit of the District Fund of any county district or districts in which such smaller area is comprised.'"—(Viscount Templetown.)
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I confess that this Bill has taken me somewhat unawares. Having just returned from Scotland, I have had no time to look into it, and therefore I can only speak with regard to it at third hand. I have had a paper handed to me explaining the working of the clause, and it certainly does seem that it would be much better if the noble and learned Lord would withdraw the Bill for the present session. It is scarcely right to bring forward a Bill of such importance, and containing clauses

  755
  seriously affecting landlords and tenants, at such a late period of the session, when there is so little opportunity for discussion. I am told that the working of the clause will be as follows:—If the sum to be raised represented one twentieth of a penny—a common case—then by raising a farthing, that is, five twentieths, you raise five times the necessary amount each time, and, as the landlord must allow the tenant one-half the amount raised in the cases—which are very numerous—mentioned in Section 54 (9), he will have on every levy to pay five times the amount intended by the principal Act to be paid by him, or, in other words, two and a half times the total annual charge required to be raised. I do not think this is a provision that would commend itself to your Lordships, and I would therefore appeal to my noble and learned friend to withdraw the Bill.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The suggestion of my noble friend is one which obviously the Government cannot accept. This Bill has been brought in for the purpose of making the machinery of the Local Government Act of 1898 work more smoothly and in a more businesslike way, and it is one which must be regarded from a practical point of view. The speeches of the noble Viscount behind me and of the noble Lord who has just sat down convey an idea of magnitude quite out of proportion to the intention of the clause. The particular matter dealt with in Clause 4 is this: Whenever the rate or tax to be raised is only a fraction of a farthing, a rate of a farthing is to be levied, and the balance carried forward in a particular way. The farthing is fixed upon as being the smallest coin we use and for convenience of collection. The Amendment would be infinitely more dangerous, because it contains no limit whatever. It would enable the limit of a farthing to be exceeded, and would also necessitate the keeping of a separate account in respect of every area in the country, however small. The matter has been very carefully considered, and the clause is framed in a way that is deemed to be most workable. I trust, therefore, that the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I am afraid I must press my Amendment. The
  756
  noble and learned Lord said the object of the clause was to make the machinery of the Act work more smoothly, but it is to do so at the expense of the landlords. The maguitude of this clause has been questioned by the noble and learned Lord. I admit that a fraction of a farthing is not a very large sum, but when you come to multiply it on thousands of tenancies it becomes a serious matter. If the bookkeeping qualifications of the officers of the county councils are not sufficient to enable them to keep a separate account for this money, then the sooner more efficient officers are appointed the better.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I have given my noble friend fairly, and I hope courteously, the reasons that were in the Government's mind when the clause was drafted, and I hope the Amendment will not be persisted in. It is obvious that if you deal with fractions of a farthing it will be impossible to work the rate. Since the Amendment was placed upon the Paper it has been carefully considered with an earnest desire to arrive at the best arrangement possible, and the Government are advised that the clause as it stands will work infinitely better than the Amendment, which, personally, I do not think would work at all. If the noble Lord persists in his Amendment the only result will be that either the prorogation will have to be postponed or else the Bill will be wrecked for this session.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I must take a division on the Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I do not think; my noble friend contemplates all the possibilities of a division. The Government cannot give way on a Bill of this kind, and a division would work out no practical result. It would simply lead to I considerable delay and misunderstanding. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will reconsider the matter, and be satisfied with the discussion which has taken place.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I must insist on my Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I would suggest that what we are doing is not altogether

  757
  dignified. We all of us know that if the Amendment is pressed and a division challenged, the whole thing, by the Standing Orders of the House, will have to be adjourned till to-morrow. If there was a possibility of any practical result following, that might be justified; but when your Lordships assemble to-morrow Ave shall be in exactly the same position. Precisely the same thing will occur, and we might go on in that way the whole week until the session comes to an end summarily. I do suggest that it is not quite to the dignity of the House to do that.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Is there any reason why the clause should not be withdrawn altogether?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Well. I have no option. In the exigencies of my position, and under pressure, I will withdraw the clause, but I cannot say what will be done elsewhere.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: With the best intentions in the world, I am sorry the position is one that has led to an impasse.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I have endeavoured to meet the noble Viscount in the fairest possible way. He must recognise that time is of priceless value at this period of the session. The Bill was put down for Friday, but my noble friend was not in attendance, and it was in deference to an intimation made to me to the effect that he desired to make a statement that I postponed it till to-day, in order to give him an opportunity of doing so. I did everything that was humanly possible at this period of the session to enable the Bill to be discussed and examined.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 struck out of the Bill.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Amendments reported, and Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this Bill was originally introduced by a private Member in the other House, but on account of the importance of the matters at issue, it has received the sanction of the Government, and comes up to your Lordships' House with the Government's support. The object of the Bill is to amend the Tramways (Ireland) Acts, 1860 to 1896, and to assimilate legislation relating to light railways and tramways in Ireland to that already existing in England.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I would point out that this Bill has only just been printed, and it is quite impossible, therefore, for the House to know what is in it. I only succeeded in getting a copy a quarter of an hour before the House met do not wish to place any impediment in the way of the Bill passing, if the noble Earl assures us that there are no matters of importance involved.
The Earl of ARRAN: It is most unreasonable on the part of the Government to bring forward at the end of the session a Bill of this important character. I think it would be extremely advisable to postpone it until next session.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My noble friend does not indicate any particular ground of objection. The fact that the Bill comes up from the House of Commons at the end of the session cannot, I think, be urged as a reason for postponing it till another session. If there is any point my noble friend wishes to have explained I shall be glad to hear it.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My principal objection is to Clause 3 of the Bill. Section 43 of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, prohibits a house wholly built of stone or brick with lime, or any of the outbuildings or offices thereof, or any part of any yard, haggard, orchard, or plantation attached or belonging thereto,

759
from being taken for the purpose of the undertaking without the consent in writing of the owner respectively. This clause will repeal that portion of Section 43 if an Order in Council is obtained to prevent it so applying. I think this is a very important point.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Clause 3 of this Bill has to be read in connection with the provision in the existing legislation which it seeks to amend. Section 43 of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, provides that—
"Nothing in this Act, or in any Order under it, shall be deemed to authorise to be taken for the purposes of the undertaking any mansion honse, or house wholly built of stone or brick, with lime, or any of the outbuildings or offices thereof, or any part of any yard, haggard, garden, orchard, or plantation attached or belonging thereto, or any part of any deer park or other park or demesne, or planted or ornamental walk, drive, approach, or avenue, or of any ground ornamentally planted, or of any lawn or bleach green, without the consent in writing of the owner thereof respectively, although the same may lie within such distance as in the last preceding section is mentioned."
Clause 3 of the Bill now before your Lordships is as follows—
"Any Order in Council under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts, 1860 to 1S96, may provide that so much of Section 43 of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, as prohibits a house wholly built of stone or brick with lime, or any of the outbuildings or offices thereof, or any part of any yard, haggard, orchard, or plantation attached to or belonging thereto, from being taken for the purpose of the undertaking without the consent in writing of the owner respectively, shall not apply to the tramway authorised by the Order."
This clause does not authorise to be taken for the purposes of the undertaking any mansion house, or any part of any deer park or other park or demesne, or planted or ornamental walk, drive, approach, or avenue, or of any ground ornamentally planted, or of any lawn or bleach green without the consent in writing of the owner respectively. These are all left untouched, and cannot be meddled with without the sanction of the owner. Your Lordships will at once appreciate the wide distinction. This Bill deals with matters which are obviously of much smaller importance, and the Privy Council, before whom the spplication will come, will closely examine the evidence with an earnest desire to do only that which is just and fair.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: But Clause 3 gives power to the promoters of a tramway under the Bill to take a plantation attached to a house without the sanction of the owner.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I would point out that, as all schemes must be sanctioned, by the Privy Council, the rights of the owners are safeguarded.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I do not think the explanation of my noble and learned: friend is sufficient——
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am afraid I must interpose. This is the Second Reading of the Bill, and the noble Lord has made three speeches.
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 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:—
THE EARL OF ARRAN: With the permission of your Lordships I will move to amend the clause by striking out the words "or plantation attached to or belonging thereto."
Amendment moved—
"To omit from 'orchard' in line 11, to 'from' in line 12."—(The Earl of Arran.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I take it that, as the law now stands, any person owning a plantation, haggard, or orchard has the right, before that plantation or any part of it can be taken for the purpose of constructing a tramway, of being fully heard before the Privy Council. If he is dissatisfied he has an appeal from the decision of the Privy Council. The Amendment which my noble friend proposes would, as I understand it, have this result: that anyone owning a tiny corner of a plantation, with half a dozen stunted trees upon it, could absolutely put a stop to a useful tramway scheme by withholding his consent in writing to the scheme. That is an exaggerated precaution. I think those

761
whose interest the noble Earl has at heart are amply protected by the law as it stands.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: The case instanced by the noble Marquess is an extreme one, and one not likely to occur. I have in my mind a long public road, fringed with plantations, which is too narrow to allow of a tramway being constructed. Under the clause the whole four or five miles of plantation running along the road might be destroyed for the purpose of the tramway.
LORD ASHBOURNE: Such a case would come under that part of Section 43 which is left untouched.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I understand that would be so in the case of a plantation within a demesne, but a plantation outside a demesne would, I think, be affected by this clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived; Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUPPLEMENTAL WAR LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill road 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at half-past Five of the clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.