Sitting of 8 February 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LLANDRINDOD WELLS WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners have leave to examine the Llandrindod Wells
  902
  Water, Petition for Bill, as to whether the Standing Orders have or have not been complied with, provided that notice of such examination shall have been once previously published in a newspaper published in the district, and in the London Gazette.
  Ordered, That Memorials complaining of non-compliance with the Standing Orders shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office three clear days before the day appointed for the examination of the Petition.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, and the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, relating to lands in the parishes of St. Mary Stratford Bow, East Molesey, and Clerkenwell, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, and the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, relating to lands in the parishes of St. Mary Stratford Bow, East Molesey, and Clerkenwell," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
PETITIONS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION.
  Petition from Blean, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF WOODLANDS.
  Petition from Wirral, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Hulme, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Helensburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1899–1800).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of the additional number of men and of the further amount required in the year ending 31st March 1900, in consequence of the War in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 36.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  Copy presented of Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March 1901, together with a copy of the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relating thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 37.]
  IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
  Copy presented, of Account for the year 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Bank of England,—Copy of all applications made by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for Advances to Government authorised by Parliament, from 5th January, 1899, to 5th January, 1900 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 38.]
  Naval Expenditure and Mercantile Marine (Great Britain, &c.)—Return ordered, "showing Aggregate Naval Expenditure on Seagoing Force; Aggregate Revenue; Aggregate Tonnage of Mercantile Marine; Annual Clearances of Shipping in the Foreign Trade; Annual Clearances of Shipping in the Coasting Trade; Annual Value of Imports by Sea, including Bullion and Specie; and Annual Value of Exports by Sea, including Bullion and Specie, of various Countries, exclusive of China and South American
  904
  Republics, but including British Self-governing Colonies, for the year 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 310, of Session 1899)."—(Sir John Colomb.)

  EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  Return ordered, "under administrative counties and county boroughs, of particulars with respect to the Evening Continuation Schools inspected for the year ended the 30th day of April, 1899."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Return ordered "of the number of Aliens that arrived from the Continent at ports in the United Kingdom in each month of the year 1900."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 39.]

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.
  Copy ordered "of Accounts showing—

  1. The receipts and payments in connection with the fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1899;

  2. The distribution of the capital of the fund at the commencement and close of the year;

  together with the correspondence of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 40.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—BRITISH PRISONERS AT PRETORIA.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the number of British officers, non-commissioned officers, and men now prisoners of war at Pretoria; and whether any and, if so, what steps can or will be taken in the event of Pretoria being besieged by the British forces for the protection of the lives of the British prisoners of war in Pretoria, in case of failure of the Transvaal food

  905
  supply, and in case of the shelling of Pretoria by the British forces.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): According to the latest return 2,283 officers and men are "missing." We have no certain knowledge how many of them are prisoners. The matter referred to in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question must be left to the discretion of Lord Roberts.

  EGYPTIAN GUNS AND STORES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any stores and arms belonging to the Egyptian Government have been despatched to the Transvaal, and under what authority.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Six Maxim guns have been obtained from Egypt for Her Majesty's forces, with the consent of Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General and of the Sirdar. They will be replaced from this country.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were the guns removed with the consent of the Egyptian Government? That is the question.
  [No answer was given.]

  COMPOSITION OF THE BRITISH FORCE AT THE FRONT.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he would state approximately how the 180,600 of our troops which, in the estimate of the Government, are expected to be in South Africa in the next fortnight or three weeks are made up—namely, how many are British and Irish, Regulars, Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers; how many have been raised in South Africa; and how many are from our colonies other than South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The composition is as follows in round numbers:—Regular Army, 126,000; Royal Navy, 1,000; Militia, 9,000; Yeomanry, 5,000; Volunteers, 10,000; Colonial Troops, 26,000. Total, 179,000. I have left out odd
  906
  numbers. The exact total is 179,846, of which about 20,000 were raised in South Africa, and about 6,000 come from other colonies. I may add that since I gave this figure to the House, it has been decided to send 17 additional battalions of Militia, and that 3,000 additional Yeomanry have been raised and will be sent out; bringing the total of Militia to something over 20,000, the total of Yeomanry to 8,000, and the grand total of forces of all kinds to about 194,000. Perhaps I ought also to warn any hon. Members who are not familiar with the conditions of campaigning that very large deductions must be made from the total numbers sent to find the total number at any time available in the field. But I have excluded all killed and missing.

  SHOOTING OF BRITISH SUBJECTS COMMANDEERED BY THE ENEMY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will add to his inquiries concerning the men reported to have been shot in the Orange Free State for refusing to be commandeered, the query whether they are burghers, native or naturalised, of the Free State, and have been granted naturalisation, on the terms of their being subject to all the obligations and liabilities of burghers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Governor of Natal has been asked whether, assuming there was any truth in the report, there were any circumstances tending to exonerate the authorities of the Orange Free State. This includes the hon. Member's query.

  ALLEGED SHOOTING OF BOERS AT DE AAR.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the statement attributed to ex-Police Constable Sharp of the Blackburn Police, now a private in the 1st Shropshire Regiment serving with Lord Methuen, that, while that regiment was at De Aar, seven Boers and two Irishmen were taken out and shot, whether, as neither Lord Methuen nor any other commanding officer has made report on such an incident, inquiry will

  907
  be made of him whether there is any foundation for such a statement.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will refer me to the authority on which this statement is attributed to Private Sharp I will make inquiries, if the statement affords any basis upon which a question to Lord Roberts can be formulated.

  CONTRABAND OF WAR—RIGHT OF SEARCH—THE "HERZOG."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty is he aware that the ship "Herzog" was detained by Her Majesty's ship "Thetis," and taken in to Durban on suspicion of carrying contraband of war; that there was on board the "Herzog" a large party of men professing to be an ambulance party; that these men were armed, some of their arms being in charge of the captain; that, besides these, there were some forty second-class passengers with no recognised status, affecting to belong to Geneva red cross societies; also that the "Herzog's" papers showed that among her cargo were numerous cases professing to contain macaroni, which there is reason to believe contained rifles; and that there were also large quantities of tinned provisions, coffee, boots, cyanide, and other things of use in warlike operations, most of them consigned to Mr. Potts, the Transvaal Vice Consul at Delagoa Bay, and others of them consigned to well-known Transvaal agents there; will he say by whom and in virtue of what authority the "Herzog" was released without any examination being made of her cargo or passengers by the Prize Court, and were Her Majesty's Government consulted with reference to the release of this vessel; and was the release of the vessel ordered by Her Majesty's Government; and if so, why.
  MR. BRODRICK: The "Herzog" was detained by Her Majesty's ship "Thetis" and taken into Durban on suspicion of carrying contraband of war. She was released by order of Her Majesty's Government, as summary search did not reveal guns or ammunition, and assurances of a satisfactory nature had been given by the German Government on behalf of the company she belonged to. No contraband was found among her
  908
  cargo at Lorenzo Marques; the fact of members of an ambulance corps carrying revolvers would not disqualify them from claiming to be non-combatants. The officers of the British Army Medical Corps carry swords, and occasionally revolvers. It is not known that these revolvers were in charge of the captain.

  MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to statements as to the defects in the military hospitals in Cape Colony and Natal; and whether he has any information which he can communicate to the House with a view of relieving the anxiety of those who have relatives or friends among the sick and wounded in South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In reply I will read selections from two telegrams on the matter from Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller. Lord Roberts, telegraphing from Cape Town, January 22, 1900, 7.45 p.m., says—
  "There is no real foundation for report reflecting on hospitals at the Cape. I am perfectly satisfied with all arrangements for reception and treatment of wounded. The quality of cooking was indifferent for first week; nothing more can be complained of, and this was rectified as soon as possible. …"
  Sir Redvers Buller telegraphed to Lord Roberts, January 30, 1900, 10.50 a.m.—
  "One of the Natal papers is attacking the management of the military hospitals, and, as some of the false and ridiculous statements may cause anxiety at home, I think it right to say that Mr. Treves assures me there is no possible ground for complaint, and that I may rest satisfied that all the medical arrangements are completely satisfactory to him. I pressed him if he could suggest improvement, and he said he could not. … I have given the matter every consideration, and can only express my admiration of the arrangements made by Colonel Galway and the Royal Army Medical Corps, and Mr. Treves assures me that he entirely agrees with me."

  HAY CONTRACTS.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether large quantities of hay for South Africa are being purchased in North and South America; if so, what prices are being paid; and what attempts have been

  909
  made to buy similar hay in Great Britain, and what prices were offered.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Large quantities of hay for South Africa are being purchased in North and South America. The prices at which contracts are placed are not made public. Tenders have been invited for British hay, but the prices at which home-grown hay has been offered involve a much heavier total cost on delivery in South Africa than is incurred for the American hay, while the hay itself is not so suitable for the purposes of the present campaign.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not a fact that large quantities of foreign-bought hay have turned out to be rotten?
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is not the freight on hay from this country less than from America?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The total cost of hay is less when sent from America than when sent from this country. I have no knowledge of large consignments of hay from America having been found rotten.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I did not refer merely to American hay. Is it not the case that a large quantity of foreign-bought hay has had to be condemned by the authorities?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I do not know of any having had to be condemned.

  BOOT CONTRACTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the War Office has obtained from Indian factories a large quantity of boots for the use of the troops in South Africa; what number of pairs of boots have been thus obtained; at what price they have been supplied, and at what prices Army boots, both hand sewn and machine made, have been contracted for this past year in Northamptonshire and other shoe manufacturing districts in England; whether very large tenders of boots have been made by English firms this past year,
  910
  and only small orders placed with such firms on the ground of price; whether it was found that the Indian made boots supplied to Lord Kitchener's forces in the Soudan proved unsatisfactory, while English made wire sewn and riveted boots stood the campaign exceedingly well; and whether the leather out of which Indian boots are made is thinner, and therefore unsuitable for rough travelling in stony country; whether the Indian boots supplied to the South Africa forces were, before the decision to purchase, submitted to the usual examination of the Army boot inspectors in this country; and whether, in arranging for the present and future requirements of the troops, the War Office will take the proper steps to secure the soundest and strongest boots from approved English firms at a fair price, having regard to the increase in the price of sound leather and to the cost of British labour.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: In order to meet a very urgent demand 60,000 pairs of boots have been ordered from India, at prices equal to the lowest price paid in England. They could not have been obtained as quickly from any other source. Contract prices are not disclosed. The Indian boots supplied for the Soudan, as well as the English made wire-sown and riveted boots, were found quite satisfactory. The Indian boots were subjected to the usual inspection in India, and were shipped thence to South Africa. Orders for boots have, during the past year, been placed at home with all firms offering supplies at reasonable prices. The offers declined were from makers whose quotations were much above the mass of tenders received. As a rule, the boots of the British Army are obtained from home manufacturers, but in a time of emergency, when immediate delivery is necessary, other sources of supply have occasionally to be resorted to.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask why these requirements were not anticipated in time to get the boots in England? Have not tenders for 300,000 pairs been issued within the past week?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH MILITIA REGIMENTS ON FOREIGN SERVICE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State

  911
  for War, will he explain in what manner Irish Militia regiments who are stated to have volunteered for the Cape offered such service; whether the men were individually consulted by their commanding officer; and whether any opportunity was subsequently afforded to them of reconsidering their decision.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The mode of calling on Militia units for service abroad has been left to the commanding officers, who have received explicit orders to allow no pressure to be put on the men. It has been usual in the case of embodied units to ask the men on parade, in the case of disembodied units to send to each individual a reply-paid postcard. In all cases an opportunity is given to the men of reconsidering their decisions. The general officer, or an officer deputed by him, inspects the unit on parade before its departure and asks any man who does not volunteer to step out of the ranks and say so. Of this opportunity a few men have taken advantage.

  YEOMANRY COMMISSIONS.
  MR. BARLOW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why it is that gentlemen who have only done a few weeks training in Yeomanry cavalry have been granted commissions as majors and captains in the Imperial Yeomanry and Mounted Infantry force, while Reserve officers with from five to eight years service in the Household Brigade and cavalry and infantry of the line are only given the rank of lieutenant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The selection of all the regimental officers of the Imperial Yeomanry has been entrusted to the Yeomanry Committee, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and he does not doubt that they have made their selection in the manner most conducive, in their opinion, to the efficiency of the corps.

  THE DEVONSHIRE YEOMANRY.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why the Devonshire company of the Imperial Yeomanry has been notified that it will not embark for another three weeks, although it has been in continuous
  912
  training for a month and has been very favourably reported on both by the inspecting officer and by the colonel commanding.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Transport is assigned for companies of Yeomanry on the application of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee; and the order in which the companies are taken rests entirely with that Committee. The Committee's requisition for transport for the Devonshire Company was received on the 29th January; but by that time all ships available for the carriage of horses had been appropriated for other companies and for the 4th Cavalry Brigade. No further horse transports can now be available till the 21st instant.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS.
  MR. M'CRAE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government are prepared to introduce a short amending Act to allow Volunteer officers to volunteer for active service, and to permit of their services as officers being accepted, where approved, by the War Office.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the provision in the Volunteer Act that disables Volunteer officers who are willing to serve Her Majesty outside Great Britain from being appointed officers in the regular Army by commission or acting commission, in the same way as gentlemen who are not Volunteer officers; and whether the acceptance of a commission or acting commission in the regular Army in itself binds the person accepting it to serve Her Majesty wherever called upon to do so.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It has been found possible to effect the object sought without an alteration of the Act. It was at first considered necessary to enlist officers as well as men in order to bring them under military law. The War Office is, however, now advised that the grant of a temporary commission will effect this object.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: Does that apply to Imperial Yeomanry commissions as well?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.

  OFFER OF A BATTERY, WITH MEN, BY MESSRS. ARMSTRONG AND THE COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co. have at any time within the past six months offered to either the Imperial or Colonial Governments guns for use in South Africa, which have have been declined; if so, whether he can state the number and character of the guns offered, and why they were declined.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In December last a battery of six 15-pounder guns, similar to those with which our field batteries are armed, was offered by Sir Andrew Noble for the use of the Natal colonial forces. This offer was transmitted to Natal, and a reply was received to the effect that the Natal colonial forces were at that time unable to accept the battery; at the same time it was asked that the offer might be kept open. Meanwhile, a further offer was made by Lord Grey, with the consent of Sir Andrew Noble, to send out this same battery of 15-pounder guns, manned by Volunteers, on behalf of the county of Northumberland. This otter has been accepted, and the battery is now being prepared for embarkation to South Africa.

  SLEEPING HELMETS.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on the recommendation of those acquainted with the South African climate some of our troops have been supplied with sleeping helmets at the instance of private donors; that such helmets are regarded as an absolutely necessary protection against pneumonia and other lung troubles; and if the War Office will cause all the troops to be furnished with them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of providing some head-dress for sleeping in is under consideration.

  RESERVE OFFICERS' OUTFITS.
  MR. BARLOW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether by the regulations Reserve officers when called out for active service are entitled to
  914
  a sum of £100 to provide their outfit; and will he explain why, seeing that it was published in the official papers that Reserve officers might apply for commissions in the Imperial Yeomanry, the War Office refuses to give these officers this grant of £100, so that although the Imperial Yeomanry Fund gives them £65, yet they do not obtain the full allowance prescribed by the regulations.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A member of the Reserve of Officers if called out for duty is entitled to an outfit allowance of £100, but such officers of the Reserve as have joined the Imperial Yeomanry have not been called out and are merely volunteers for that corps. As such, they are not entitled to more outfit allowance than the other officers who have volunteered.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  SIR E. T. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will be good enough to inform the House who is receiving the traffic money of the Delagoa Bay Railway which belongs to the British creditors who built the line upon land assigned by Portuguese concession; whether he has considered the propriety of taking such steps as would protect the property and its revenues in the interests of British subjects, seeing that no award has yet been obtained from the arbitrators after ten years' consideration of the subject; has he received any explanation or reason why the award, which in the last session he assured the House would be delivered in October last, was not made, and has not yet been made; and is there any reason to believe that the Boer and Portuguese Governments have influenced the delay of the award in order that this English railway should continue to be made the means of transporting, for Boer service, volunteers and arms and munitions of war; and can he assure the British shareholders of the railway that some immediate effort will be made by Her Majesty's Government to protect their interests by insisting on an award being made without further excuse or delay.
  MR. BRODRICK: The railway is in the hands of the Portuguese Government. Her Majesty's Government have been given no reasons or explanations as to the delay in the delivery of the award,

  915
  nor are they aware of the cause of the delay, which they consider regrettable. They cannot interfere with the proceedings of the tribunal.

  ROYAL MARINES—SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have considered the inequality in the treatment of the Royal Marine forces, who have been landed with the Naval Brigade, in the matter of separation allowances as compared with the other armed forces in South Africa with a view to the removal of such inequality; will he explain why under present regulations the marines if married are deprived of the lodging allowance of 3s. 6d. per week when ordered for embarkation afloat, whilst the soldier's wife who is married on the strength of the regiment is granted separation allowance of 8d. per day with 4d. per day for each child; and whether the lodging allowance of 6d. per day now granted to the marine when married on shore can be continued in all cases when embarked afloat.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The question raised by the hon. and gallant Member is inherent in the conditions of service in the Royal Navy, and the regulations governing the allowances of the Royal Marines cannot be made throughout identical with those obtaining in the Army. No distinction is made between Marines when serving afloat, and when landed from one of H.M. ships for shore operations, as a portion of a Naval Brigade while still borne on ships' books, as in operations in which the services of the Marines are lent for a time as an adjunct to the land forces. When not borne on ship's books and serving with the Army, a Marine receives all Army allowances at existing Army rates. With regard to the last general question, I am not prepared to revise the scale of pay of the Marines after the concession which I was glad to be able to make to them last year.

  SOLDIERS' EFFECTS FUND.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War
  916
  what is the present amount of the Soldiers' Effects Fund; what has been the average sum by which it has been augmented during the last three years; and whether as the Royal Commissioners have reported there are still many hundreds of widows of Crimean soldiers whose claims have not been met, this fund can be applied for their benefit.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The present amount of the fund is £159,683, and the average sum by which it has been augmented during the last three years is £6,278. The fund is a diminishing fund, and is not available for cases of widows whose husbands did not die on service or within six months of discharge.

  GOVERNMENT CLERICAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in filling up the existing vacancies in the clerical establishments in the Royal Ordnance Factories, in the Army Clothing Factory, in the Type Writing Department of the War Office, and in the Army Nursing Service, the Secretary of State will endeavour to favourably consider the applications of the sons and daughters of officers of the Army and Navy who have been killed in action, or who have died from wounds received or from illness contracted whilst on active service, and whose families have been left in necessitous circumstances.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State will gladly take these cases into consideration, where appointments are not reserved by Order in Council for public competition; but almost all the clerical appointments mentioned, except those for typists, are so reserved.

  COAL EMERGENCY CONTRACTS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when and under what circumstances steam coal has ever been taken by the Admiralty on emergency contracts; whether the Government has notified foreign Powers that a state of war exists between the British Empire and the South African Republics; why none of the contracts for the supply of steam vessels' coals to the Government in times

  917
  of emergency have been put into force during the past few months; and when he makes the proposed modifications in the present form of emergency contract, will he consider the desirability of securing the right to claim all the produce of collieries entering into the contract at the market price of the day during the period of an emergency, and of paying some small subsidy in consideration, as is now done to shipowners and owners of horses.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The answer to the hon. Member's first question is—In 1888 for the naval manœuvres. Since then the emergency contracts have not provided for the case of the annual manœuvres; the answer to the second question is in the affirmative; the answer to the third question is that the circumstances at the time did not render it necessary to draw coal under the emergency contracts—we have done better without them: in regard to the last question, care will be taken when new emergency contracts are made to consider every reasonable suggestion which is made, but the hon. Member will not, I am sure, expect me to say more.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that the Government pay a much higher price?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think I ought to say much about prices.

  THE EXPLOSION ON THE "REVENGE."
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give any information as to the cause of the recent explosion of cordite in the magazine of the flagship "Revenge" in the Mediterranean; whether the temperature of the magazine was abnormally high; whether the system of ventilation was defective; and whether any improvement can be suggested for reducing the temperature of magazines in which high explosives are stored.
  MR. GOSCHEN: An inquiry has been held as to the recent small explosion of cordite in H.M.S. "Revenge," and the whole of the evidence obtained has been referred to the War Office for the opinion of the Ordnance Committee. Until this has been obtained, nothing can be said as to the probable cause of the explosion. There is no evidence, so far, tending to
  918
  show that it was due to high temperature, the temperature of the magazine not having been abnormally high for some considerable time before the explosion took place. During the summer the recorded temperatures were somewhat high. In reply to the last question of the gallant Member, steps are being taken to reduce the temperature of magazines in which high temperatures have been recorded.

  CHIPPING RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government, in considering the question of providing additional rifle ranges, are also proposing to deal with that of improving the access to existing ranges, and whether, in particular, it is intended to encourage or assist the making of a light railway from Longridge, near Preston, to Chipping, in order to facilitate the use by Volunteers and others of the range at Chipping, on which a large amount of money has been expended by the present and the previous Government.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of providing additional rifle ranges is receiving the special attention of Her Majesty's Government, but the War Office has no knowledge of the light railway referred to.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Will inquiry be made?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be happy to pay attention to any communication addressed to me on the subject.

  BASUTOLAND—NATIVE LABOUR.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the speech of Earl Grey, one of the directors of the South African Chartered Company, at a meeting of the company on 14th December, 1899, in which he advocates the imposition of a hut tax of £1 per hut as an incentive to labour, in conformity with the practice which exists in Basutoland, and with the permission of the Imperial authorities, the establishment of a labour tax which able-bodied natives should be required to pay who are unable to show a certificate of four months'

  919
  work; whether the Imperial authorities have been approached on this subject; and whether they have agreed to the labour tax as suggested by Earl Grey.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second and third I have to say that no proposals on the subject have been as yet placed before me by the company.

  GOLD COAST—RAILWAYS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the Government railway between Cape Coast Castle and Axim in the Gold Coast Colony; and whether he will consider the advisability of extending the system of State railways from the town of Winnebah to Acasu, Akropong, Kumassi, and Brandfordville, with a view of opening up to commerce the fertile plains in the hinterland of that colony and protectorate.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No railway is being made along the coast from Cape Coast to Axim, but one is being made from Secondee to Tarquah, and will be completed in the course of this year. The question of making other railways is under consideration, and preliminary surveys have been made of two different routes to Coomassie, one of which starts from Appam, near Winnabah.

  INDIAN EXPENDITURE COMMISSION.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can inform the House when the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure is likely to be issued.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I understand from the Chairman of the Commission that it is expected that the report will be signed on the 14th of February.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to an allegation contained in a circular letter, dated 27th December last,
  920
  from the Government of India to the local governments, to the effect that the people in the famine districts are extremely ready to throw themselves on the charity of the State, and to avail themselves of every form of relief; whether he is aware that this statement has excited surprise and dissatisfaction in India; and whether he will state the evidence upon which the allegation is made, and since what period it is suggested that this feature has developed itself in the Indian character.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have seen the circular letter dated the 27th December to which the hon. Member's question refers, but I cannot accept his description of its contents without some important qualifications, and I am not aware that it has caused dissatisfaction in India. The circular suggests, as the result of practical experience and investigation of the relief system as now worked, that care should be taken not to allow the revenues of India to be expended for the benefit of persons who are not actually in need of it; but it further states that the Government of India fully approves the prompt action which has been taken to organise famine relief on a large scale, and that they share the anxiety of the local Governments that relief shall be made accessible from the outset to the people.

  THE BROTHERS NATU.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the release of the Natu brothers is unconditional; and whether, in view of the conspicuous loyalty exhibited by the Indian people at this critical time, he will make a statement regarding the Natus which will satisfy the public that the measures taken in their case were prudent and necessary.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I fully appreciate the loyalty exhibited by the princes and peoples of India; but I do not propose to add anything to the statement I have already made with regard to the recent detention of the Natu brothers.

  WORKMEN'S TRAMS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been

  921
  drawn to the model clause which is now inserted in Tramway Bills to ensure a service suited to workmen; and if he would consider whether, having regard to the time that has elapsed since it was framed and to the general adoption of electric traction, the existing clause could be amended in respect of the lateness of the hour in the morning at which workmen's cars are provided, the number of these cars that must be run daily, and the amount of the fare charged; and, if so, whether the Board of Trade will undertake to amend the clause in these respects, or to provide a new one.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The alteration of a model clause in Tramway Bills is a matter for the authorities of Parliament, and not for me. I will bring the matter under their notice.

  BUCKLAND MUSEUM OF FISH CULTURE.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the statement made to the deputation which waited on the Lord President of the Council and himself on Monday last that there was not sufficient room to accommodate the Buckland Museum of Fish Culture at South Kensington Museum, he would consider the advisability of removing it to the branch museum at Bethnal Green.
  MR. RITCHIE: Bethnal Green would hardly seem to be a particularly convenient and accessible situation for the Buckland Museum of Fish Culture; but I will take care that the hon. Member's suggestion shall receive consideration, together with all other suggestions which may be made.

  SECRET SERVICE FUND.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in each of the last three years a balance of money voted by Parliament for secret service has been unexpended, he would state the amount, if any, of the Vote for secret service that remains unexpended during the present financial year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It would not be possible, without
  922
  calling for accounts from the various Departments concerned, to state exactly how much of the total Vote for the current year remains unspent at the present time. But I anticipate that, at the end of the year, there will be only a nominal balance to be surrendered.

  NICARAGUA CANAL.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether England has relinquished all her rights under the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in respect to, the Nicaragua Canal; and, if so, what compensating advantages, if any, have been secured in exchange.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Convention supplementary to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, signed at Washington on the 5th instant, has been laid before the House. There has been no question of compensation, the advantages in the former Convention relative to the neutrality of the canal, and the protection of commerce under conditions of entire equality, being fully maintained.

  RUSSIAN LOAN TO PERSIA.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the offer of the Russian Government to give financial help to the Shah of Persia with a view to pay off the Anglo-Persian Loan of 1892, and whether the offer of Russia has been accepted by his Majesty the Shah; and, if so, what are the terms of the offer. Will the right hon. Gentleman also state the full extent of the loan?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no further information to give respecting the Russian loan to Persia than that contained in my answer of Tuesday to a question by the hon. Member for Chester. Among the conditions of the loan as published is an engagement on the part of Persia to extinguish all its previous external obligations out of the proceeds of the new loan.

  ZANZIBAR CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any customs duties have

  923
  been recently somewhat suddenly imposed on some and increased on other British goods imported into Zanzibar.
  MR. BRODRICK: On the 15th of September last a notification was issued by the Government of Zanzibar reimposing from and after that date a duty of 5 per cent. ad valorem on all goods, with certain specified exceptions, entering the port of Zanzibar. The exceptions were—coins, coals, hippopotamus teeth, ivory, rhinoceros horns and hide, rubber and tortoiseshell. The notification contained a proviso that goods, on which duty was not already charged, would, if at sea before September 15th, be admitted free. The notification was issued without previous warning.

  ORPHAN HOMES OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the orphan homes of Scotland are still compelled to pay school rates, while the children are refused the public education to which the homes have to contribute.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I understand that the orphan homes under the management of Mr. Quarrier at Kilmalcolm, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, are subject to the usual rates. The School Board of Kilmalcolm does not hold itself to be under an obligation to provide accommodation in board schools for the large number of children in these homes, in place of the school provision which was made for them up to last year in the homes by those responsible for bringing these children to the parish. The Department has offered, and is still prepared to entertain an application for, annual grants to a school conducted by the authorities of the homes, and if such a school were placed on the annual grant list it would be exempt from assessment in respect of its premises.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if any circular has yet been sent to the local authorities, directing their attention to the provisions of the Elementary Educa-
  924
  tion Act which came into force on the 1st January last, and in particular to its effect on agricultural districts; and if his Department have issued, or intend to issue, any model bye-laws for adoption by local authorities who take advantage of the agricultural provision of the Act.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Such a circular has just been issued. The circular suggests a form of addition to the bye-laws which, if adopted by the local authority, will carry out the agricultural provision of the Act.

  SPECIAL REPORTS ON EDUCATIONAL SUBJECTS.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education how many copies of the excellent series of Special Reports on Educational Subjects, issued from his department, are distributed to educationalists in this country; if he is aware that in the United States of America public interest in education has been greatly stimulated by a free distribution of similar reports; and whether, if he cannot promise a free distribution, he will at any rate take steps to lower the price of the volumes, and to make their existence better known to the public.
  SIR J. GORST: Seven hundred copies of Volume I. and five hundred of Volumes II. and III. respectively were placed at the disposal of the Education Department for gratuitous distribution. Nearly all these have been distributed in this country. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Committee of Council have no control over the price at which the volumes are sold.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: What department will supply them?
  SIR J. GORST: The Stationery Office, which is under the control of my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  "THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether such Members as express a wish to do so can have The Parliamentary Debates bound in

  925
  volumes instead of in separate parts in paper covers.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Yes, Sir. I have made arrangements to have this done.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does that answer apply exclusively to the volumes for 1900, or will it equally apply to those for 1898 and 1899? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the late contractor failed to keep his contract to supply hon. Members.
  MR. HANBURY: With regard to last session, we bought all the copies the contractor had on hand, and these can be supplied to members.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: And as to 1898?
  MR. HANBURY: I can say nothing as to that.

  INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the district surveyors constantly assess to the income tax small owners who are entitled to exemption, and much troublesome correspondence is required before they can get exemption or repayment; if he will direct the surveyors to be more careful in the future; and if he will extend to such correspondence the privilege of free postage which is at present allowed to correspondence with the officials at Somerset House.
  MR. HANBURY: It is the general practice of surveyors of taxes when once a claim to exemption from income tax has been established to see that the assessments on the property concerned be discharged for subsequent years, so long as the circumstances remain the same. The instructions issued to surveyors on the point are specific; and it is to their interest—on the score of subsequent saving of time and labour—to carry them out so far as possible. It is, of course, essential in the interests of the revenue that "small owners" should, in the first instance, adduce full and satisfactory evidence in support of any claims to relief. I will consider whether any steps
  926
  can be taken in the direction indicated in the last paragraph of the question.

  PROMOTION OF ABSTRACTORS.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he could state how many assistant clerks or abstractors have been promoted to the Second Division under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of the 29th November, 1898; in what office have such promotions been made; and the number of men promoted in each case.
  MR. HANBURY: The total number of assistant clerks or abstractors so promoted up to the 6th inst. is thirty-six. It would not be possible to state the numbers promoted in the respective offices within the usual limits of an answer, but I shall be happy to give the information privately to the hon. and gallant Member.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY STAFF.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has yet been able to lay before the Treasury any scheme by which pensions could be granted to the temporary civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey, after a service of a sufficient number of years; and, if so, whether he can state what answer the Treasury gave to his suggestion.
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Agriculture have submitted such a scheme to me semi-officially. There are, of course, serious objections in principle to granting pensions to men whose salaries have been based on the clearly-stated fact that they would not be entitled to pension; and even if those objections did not exist, I understand that the Board of Agriculture cannot name the particular civil assistants whose services will now be permanent. Permanency of employment is, of course, one of the conditions of pension rights.
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: Is there no intention on the part of the Government to make this concession?
  MR. HANBURY: Subject to what I have said, if it can be shown to us that the staff is of the same character as in other departments, we shall look favourably on the granting of pensions.

  SOUTH WEXFORD POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the following changes in the postal system of South Wexford are urgently needed, viz., that a mail be run direct from Wexford viâ Murrintown, Bridgetown, to Kilmore Quay; that the railway be used for the conveyance of mails to Drinagh and Rosslare; and that Kilrane, Broadway, Tagont, and Church-town be served by a mail car from Rosslare Harbour; and whether he will order an inquiry into the matter with a view to making these alterations.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made as to the practicability of adopting the changes advocated by the hon. Member, and the result shall be communicated to him in due course.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board obtains from time to time information as to the prevalence of cattle diseases in other countries; whether the Board has any information as to the alleged recent prevalence of foot and mouth disease in Normandy; and whether information and warnings as to the prevalence of disease in other countries cannot be issued promptly in this country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): Yes, Sir, we obtain from time to time all the information we can with regard to the prevalence of disease in cattle in foreign countries; and with regard to Normandy, we know that foot and mouth disease has rarely been absent in recent years from the northern departments of France. I scarcely think that any advantage would be gained by the adoption of the suggestion, the fact that the importation of animals from any particular country is entirely prohibited being of itself a clear indication that the country is a dangerous one so far as the possibility of the introduction of the disease is concerned.
  COLONEL GUNTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is
  928
  able to give any reason for the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country; and if it can be in any way attributable to the importation of foreign hay, straw, or other forage.
  MR. LONG; So far as our inquiries have as yet proceeded, no explanation has been obtained as to the origin of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country. Nothing has been elicited which would point to the introduction of the disease in the particular manner suggested.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether a thorough investigation of the circumstances of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Norfolk will be made; and whether steps will be taken to secure the prosecution of the persons who concealed the outbreak.
  MR. LONG: We have been already making and we shall continue to make every possible effort to trace the origin of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Norfolk, and if it should appear that any failure to comply with the requirements of the law as to the notification of disease has occurred action would be taken against the persons responsible.
  SIR SAMUEL HOARE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any information as to the probable length of time during which it may be necessary to enforce the present restrictions on the movement of cattle in Norfolk; and whether he will consider some revision of the regulations with the view of lessening, so far as can be done with safety, the great inconvenience and loss which the farmers and the cattle dealers in Norfolk are experiencing owing to the present unfortunate outbreak of cattle disease.
  MR. LONG: The continuance of restrictions on the movement of cattle in Norfolk must necessarily depend upon the course which the disease may take, and I cannot therefore make any definite announcement on the subject. But I quite realise that the existing orders can only be kept in force for a comparatively short period, and with a view to meet some of the more pressing difficulties to which they give rise we passed an order

  929
  yesterday, which is to come into operation on Friday, giving facilities for the movement of animals from one part of a farm to another, and from places outside the infected district into the boroughs of Norwich, Lowestoft, and Yarmouth. I may add that I fully realise the loss and inconvenience to which the hon. Baronet refers, but I have thought it my duty to make every effort to prevent the disease, if possible, from becoming epidemic throughout the country.

  IRISH POOR LAW EXPENDITURE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst poor law boards in Ireland on the increase in expenditure forced upon them by recent rules and orders of the Local Government Board, including the dispensary rules and the orders regulating fees to be paid to clerks, doctors, and other persons usually employed by these Boards; and whether, as these burdens are daily becoming heavier, he will see that no further regulations of this kind are made by the Local Government Board.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): A few boards of guardians have expressed dissatisfaction with the new dispensary regulations issued by the Local Government Board, but, so far as the Board are aware, their recent orders and regulations have been generally accepted without disfavour by the local authorities. The charges referred to are not daily becoming heavier, as alleged in the second paragraph. There is no power to require the Local Government Board to abstain from making regulations which it is legally incumbent upon them to make.
  MR. DALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many boards of guardians have protested against the increase of fees by the Local Government Board?
  MR. ATKINSON: If the hon. Gentleman will give notice I will enquire.

  IRISH ROAD CONTRACTS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  930
  tenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act and the creation of the new bodies it is almost impossible to get the roads made in consequence of the objections made by landlords and agents to admit road contractors to quarries formerly quite free to all; whether he will advise the Local Government Board to issue and order under seal empowering magistrates to appoint arbitrators for the owners in case they refuse to name arbitrators themselves; and whether he will advise the issue of a circular to magistrates directing them to so appoint arbitrators to fix the value of land to be taken for quarry purposes.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The Local Government Board have received representations from one county only—namely, Longford—complaining of the difficulty experienced by road contractors in obtaining access to quarries. The Board have no power to issue an order under seal for the purpose specified in the second paragraph. Under the 162nd Section of the Grand Jury Act of 1836, as adopted by Order in Council, magistrates can make an order authorising the contractor to enter and take stones and gravel where the same cannot be conveniently found elsewhere, and they are also obliged to name a householder as arbitrator in the event of the refusal or neglect of a surveyor or contractor to name one. It is the person in occupation, whether owner or tenant, who has power to appoint the third arbitrator. If he declines to do so, he cannot obtain compensation under the section. The answer to the last paragraph is, therefore, in the negative.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will it not bring the whole proceedings to a standstill if the right hon. Gentleman declines to issue the order?
  MR. ATKINSON: Not at all.

  THE WARDEN ESTATE, KENMARE
  MR. T. J. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any ejectment decrees were obtained at the late Kenmare Quarter Sessions by local landed proprietors named Warden against their tenants; whether he can state how many of the tenants proceeded against

  931
  were judicial tenants, and how many, if any, were future tenants; and whether he can also say how many evicted farms are in the Warden estate.
  MR. ATKINSON: The number of ejectment decrees referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question appears to have been four. The Government cannot undertake to advise as to the legal status of the tenants proceeded against, and it would be contrary to practice to furnish information of the nature indicated in the concluding portion of the question.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this landlord has converted existing tenants into future tenants?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  OGILBY ESTATE, CO. TYRONE.
  MR. MURNAGAN: I deg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware an order was made in 1891 by the Land Judge's Court to sell the Ogilby Estate, in the county Tyrone, final notice and schedule being then served on the tenants; whether he is aware the tenants made application to the Court two years ago to purchase their holdings; will he explain why has the necessary valuation in response to the application not been made; and will steps be taken to hasten the sale of this estate to the tenants.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The estate referred to is presumably the Omagh, not the Ogilby estate. I am informed by the solicitors having carriage of the sale that the incumbrancers objected to the sale being proceeded with in 1891. In February of last year, not two years ago, as stated in the second paragraph, application was made to the Land Judge on behalf of the tenants that the case should be listed under the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896. The case was accordingly listed, but the rental has not yet been finally settled. The case has been adjourned by the Land Judge until June next, before which date the solicitors hope the settlement of the rental will be completed.

  EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  932
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a petition was presented to the magistrates at Sneem (County Kerry) Petty Sessions in May, 1899, praying for the removal of extra police stationed in that sub-district; whether he has seen the copy of the memorial which was sent to him, signed by the local Catholic and Protestant ministers as well as others; and whether, as the magistrates in attendance approved of the petition owing to the peaceable condition of the district, any and what steps have since been taken by the Government to remove from the Sneem district the extra force of police stationed therein.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. There are no extra police at Sneem chargeable to the district. It is true there is a small force stationed there, but their employment involves no expense whatever upon the ratepayers, and it is not proposed to remove the police from the locality.

  OUT-NURSING IN IRISH UNIONS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that boards of guardians in Ireland have not the power of out-nursing children whose parents are in the workhouse; whether he is aware that out-nursed children become more industrious and useful members of society than if reared in the workhouse; and whether he will alter the Local Government rule and allow boards of guardians to out-nurse all children under their charge.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The answer to the first paragraph of this question is in the affirmative. The system of boarding out of pauper children is found to be advantageous to the children, if it is carried out under careful supervision. As a rule this method of providing for orphan and deserted children is found to be more satisfactory than maintaining them in the workhouse. Boarding out provisions are restricted to orphan and deserted children by law, and not by any rule of the Local Government Board. It would require legislation to carry out the change suggested in the last paragraph.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise that legislation be introduced?
  [No answer was given.]

  STEAM TRAWLING IN WEXFORD BAY.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the following steam trawlers were discovered fishing in Wexford Bay inside prohibited limits, the "Pembroke Castle," "Acknora" of Milford, "Bournemouth" of Bristol, and the "Hydranca"; whether those names have been forwarded to the Inspectors of Fisheries; and, if so, why has there been no prosecution; and whether the Government will send a small gunboat to protect Irish fisheries.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to this question. The cases referred to in the first paragraph were reported to the Inspectors of Fisheries and by them to the Irish Government, who were advised, after very careful inquiry, that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. The question in the last paragraph should be addressed to the Admiralty, but I may say that the new Department of Agriculture will consider the desirability of having a special vessel to facilitate the protection of Irish Fisheries from the depredations of these trawlers inside the prescribed limits.
  MR. FFRENCH: May I ask if it was impossible to find the owners of the trawlers discovered fishing in prohibited waters?
  MR. ATKINSON: Perhaps I may answer this, as it is a legal question. Although the trawlers were found in prohibited limits, it is absolutely necessary before any prosecution can be undertaken to ascertain the names of the men on board in charge of the operations. It has been found impossible to obtain them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has not the same answer been given by successive Attorneys General for years? Have not the Admiralty always refused to give Irish fisheries any protection?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the First Lord of the Admiralty take steps to send a gunboat to protect Wexford Bay from the encroachment of these foreign steam trawlers?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Or let us do it ourselves?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I must ask for notice of the question.

  CASE OF MICHAEL CURTIN.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under what circumstances and for what reason the Crown at the Winter Assizes in Cork declined to proceed with the prosecution of Mr. Michael Curtin on the charge of being implicated in the poisoning of hounds in West Limerick; whether the resident magistrate who returned Mr. Curtin for trial gave no opportunity for him to be legally represented, and refused bail, although such was forthcoming to the extent of several thousand pounds; could he state what was the nature of the evidence offered upon which Mr. Curtin was detained in custody and committed to County Cork gaol for a fortnight; and, considering the circumstances, what steps will be taken to recoup Mr. Curtin for the expense he has incurred in providing legal means for his defence against a charge with which the Crown did not proceed.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Mr. Michael Curtin was returned for trial for this offence by Mr. John French, R.M, on the 28th November to the Winter Assizes at Cork, which commenced on the 1st December. There was no time in the interval to obtain an analysis of the contents of the stomachs of the hounds alleged to have been poisoned, and accordingly the Counsel representing the Crown, Mr. Matthew Bourke, Q.C., directed that a bill should not be sent up to the Grand Jury, and that the accused should be discharged from custody. The evidence contained in the depositions disclosed a case of strong suspicion against Mr. Curtin, but was insufficient, in the opinion of counsel to justify putting him upon his trial. I cannot in reply to a question give the evidence in detail. Mr. Curtin was detained in custody for seven days, and the expenses of his witnesses,

  935
  amounting to £17, were paid by the Crown. There is no foundation for the statement that the committing magistrate refused to give Mr. Curtin an opportunity of obtaining legal assistance. Mr. Curtin was arrested at 9 a.m., and his case was not taken up by the resident magistrate until the afternoon. He had ample time to obtain that assistance if he so desired. At the time of his arrest he was asked by the police if he desired to retain a solicitor to defend him, and replied in the negative. After the depositions had been completed Mr. Curtin asked for an adjournment in order to employ a solicitor, but his request was properly declined. The magistrate, in his discretion, refused bail. There is no fund available to pay the expenses mentioned in the last paragraph.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the political action of Mr. Curtin at the last local government elections had anything to do with the prosecution?
  MR. AUSTIN: What course does the Crown propose to take with regard to the witnesses who were examined before the resident magistrate?
  MR. ATKINSON: They will be examined again should there be a second trial.
  MR. AUSTIN: Will they not be prosecuted for perjury?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LIFFORD COUNTY COURT HOUSE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on Monday last, Mr. Hardman, D.L., the High Sheriff of County Donegal, with a posse of the Royal Irish Constabulary under District Inspector Dagg, turned out of the county court house at Lifford a contractor and his workmen who were employed in making some alterations in that building according to the directions of the county council; and by whose directions were the Royal Irish Constabulary employed for this purpose.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The High Sheriff, as legal custodian of the county court house,
  936
  applied for and obtained the assistance of the police, to which he was entitled, to resist the attempt of the contractor of the county council, without the High Sheriff's consent, to make structural alterations in what is claimed to be a portion of the court house, and which, if made, would in the opinion of the Sheriff interfere with the administration of justice. The plans of the proposed alterations are, I believe, to be submitted to the High Sheriff, and I have every hope that the matter in dispute will be amicably arranged.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Having regard to these continual altercations between High Sheriffs and county councils, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in an amending Bill placing full power in the hands of the county councils?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. GIBNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what provision is to be made to recoup the teachers of national schools in Ireland, and national education generally, for the sum of £78,000 handed over to the new Board of Agriculture in Ireland last year.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I am not able to make any statement in reply to this question at present.

  CARRIAGE LICENCES IN DUBLIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that in the cities of Great Britain the revenue derivable from carriage and car licences is available to their respective corporations, he will take measures to have this system extended to the city of Dublin.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Hackney vehicles are placed under the control of the Commissioner of Police in Dublin by the Act 16 & 17. Viet. cap. 112, and Section 6 of this Act directs that the duty levied on these vehicles shall be applied towards the expenses of the force. The constitution of the Dublin Metropolitan Police is similar to that of the London Metropolitan Police, in which

  937
  the same rule prevails as to the appropriation of receipts for hackney carriage licences. Moreover, in the case of neither of these forces is there local control. It is true that in other cities in England, where the control of hackney vehicles is in the hands of the local authorities, the revenue derived from vehicles is paid to these authorities for municipal purposes, but it must be borne in mind that in these cities a much larger proportion of the cost of the police is paid from local rates than is the case in Dublin.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the fact that since the right hon. Gentleman came into office the Irish Office have insisted on putting in a local Bill a provision affecting hackney carriages which has brought in an additional revenue of £700 a year?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT NEWCASTLE WEST.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could explain why the arbitrator has not visited Newcastle West to value the lands under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, a scheme of cottages having been sanctioned by the Local Government Board inspector many months back.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The provisional order confirming the scheme became absolute only on the 3rd ultimo. The maps and schedules for arbitration purposes were not lodged by the district council until the 19th ultimo, and after these had been examined the Local Government Board appointed an arbitrator on the 6th inst. The requisite statutory advertisements must be published by the district council before the arbitrator can hold his inquiry or value the lands.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT.
  SIR T. G. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a motion adopted on the 5th instant by the Municipal Council of Dublin urging upon the Lord Lieutenant the desirability of transferring the control and manage-
  938
  ment of the Science and Art Department in Ireland to the new Agricultural and Industrial Department; and, whether he could inform the House if it is the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to exercise at an early date his own powers under Section 2 (1), (e), (f), (g) of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.
  MR. PLUNKETT: My attention has been called to the motion referred to in the question. It is the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to transfer to the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, as from April 1st, the Science and Art Department's institutions in Dublin—namely, the Royal College of Science, the Museum, the School of Art, the National Library and the Botanical Gardens; but the grants in aid of science and art teaching will continue, for the present, to be administered, as heretofore, from South Kensington.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he can say anything as to the business for the early part of next week, and whether on Monday the promised statement will be made relating to the military forces. What other business is to be taken?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the debate on the Address will he finished to-morrow, and I also assume it. I feel sure that the House will regard a fortnight all but a single day as allowing sufficient latitude for the debate on the Queen's Speech, and it is of the first importance that the House should at once proceed to that financial business which will no doubt occupy a very large portion of our time before the Easter holidays. If, as I hope, the debate on the Address is finished either to-night or to-morrow, my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War will, as soon as we have obtained certain facilities with regard to Tuesdays, proceed to introduce Supplementary Military Estimates, and make a full statement upon various questions of public military policy in which the country and the House are deeply interested. I shall also

939
propose to submit the Supply Rule in its old form on Monday in the hope that it may be passed without serious debate; but if hon. Members indicate a desire to discuss it, then I would defer it for a day.
MR. LOUGH: May I ask whether, in accordance with the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman last October, an opportunity will be afforded for the discussion of general questions raised by the Amendments to the Queen's Speech. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think more time should be given to these?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the hon. Member has misinterpreted what I said in October. I thought then that it would have been possible to dispense with the Queen's Speech at the beginning of the present sittings; but we had to arrange otherwise. Still, I think hon. Members will agree that the House has had a very full opportunity of dealing with the subjects in which it is interested. The war has no doubt absorbed a very large portion of time, and the reason is that the war is the topic—I had almost said the only topic—in which either the House or the country is interested. I hope, therefore, no objection will be raised to the conclusion of the debate on the Address at the time which both the Leader of the Opposition and myself are agreed should be the extreme limit.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will an opportunity be afforded for a discussion of the financial relations between England and Ireland? I fear that if the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman is persisted in we Irish Members will have no opportunity of discussing questions of vital importance to us.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I suggest that an opportunity might be given for the discussion of other topics mentioned in the Queen's Speech after the House has heard the statement of the Under Secretary for War and disposed of essential Government business.
MR. WOODS: May I point out that I have an Amendment down on the Paper which has never been discussed. It is one in which all Government workers are deeply interested, and I would suggest it would be
940
only fair if the right hon. Gentleman allowed the debate on the Address to continue until Wednesday next.
SIR T. G. ESMONDE: Cannot a day be set apart for the discussion of the Catholic University question, if we agree to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to end the debate on the Address to-morrow?
MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of the intentions of the Government in regard to the question of the redistribution of seats?
MR. T. M. HEALY: If the First Lord of the Treasury meets the reasonable request of the Irish Members time will, in the long run, be saved.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will answer as many of the numerous questions put to me as possible. It is a mistake to suppose that on the Queen's Speech it is expedient that everything which interests everybody should be discussed at length. If it were, it is manifest that the whole session would be occupied in the process. Of course, the Irish land question has always been with us, but the questions of financial relations and Irish University education has been recently very fully debated, and I should have thought that a comparatively brief discussion would have sufficed, or even that there need not be any discussion at all. There are two full nights before us, and I do not see why we should not get through some of the more important Amendments on the Paper before the end of the sitting to-morrow night is reached, and I suppose it will be expedient to suspend the twelve o'clock rule to-morrow in order that the debate may be concluded. As to the Government taking Tuesdays, we feel obliged to ask for privileges before Easter for financial business, and respecting the question asked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, I may at once say that redistribution of seats before the general election is entirely outside the scope of the matters which are now interesting the House. The Government have not put it in the Queen's Speech, and they do not intend to introduce in the course of the present session any Redistribution Bill.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not suspend

941
the Twelve o'clock Rule to-morrow. There are one or two topics which are considered of great importance by the overwhelming majority of the Members for Ireland, and although we do not desire to have long first class debates on them we do think they should not be excluded from discussion, as it is quite conceivable they will be if the debate is closed to-morrow night. We have no desire to put off unnecessarily the statement on military affairs, but surely under the circumstances our request is a reasonable one.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the House my honest opinion with regard to the real inwardness of the situation, and I cannot alter my view that I think the debate should end to-morrow night. Surely the hon. Gentleman can find by then an opportunity of discussing the topics in which he is interested.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

  EIGHTH DAY'S DEBATE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [30th January], "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Captain Pretyman.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR (APPLICATION OF PATRIOTIC FUND).
  MR. KEARLEY: It cannot be denied that two of the principal features of the present war which redound to the nation's credit have been the bravery of our troops—whether they be members of the Regular Army, the Navy, or the Volunteers—and the determination on the part of the public to endeavour by their generous contributions
  942
  to make provision for the dependents of those who have been called to the front, and to succour permanently the widows and children of those who lose their lives. The amount of money that has already been collected for this purpose is undoubtedly large, and I am confident it will be increased. But, at the same time, the needs will increase, the strain upon these resources will be heavy, and I do not think they will be found to be adequate. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to call attention to existing funds subscribed by the generosity of the public for kindred purposes, which have available surpluses and accumulations which, in my opinion, ought to be applied to the needs of the present war. The spirit of generosity actuating the country at the present time is highly commendable. It is no new experience. The same has always manifested itself in times of war or of catastrophe. During the Crimean War the sum of £1,500,000 was collected, and resulted in the Royal Patriotic Commission being issued in 1854. Its object was, to quote the actual words of the Royal Commission, "to aid the just and faithful distribution of" the money subscribed. Her Majesty at that time appointed a body of Commissioners, and they were solemnly charged "to make full and diligent inquiry into the best means by which the subscriptions can be best applied according to the generous intentions of the donors thereof," and also to make it their duty and concern to "secure the most impartial and beneficent distribution of all such sums as may hereafter and from time to time be received." I have set myself to-day the task of endeavouring to show—and I think I can successfully show—how little the "generous intentions of the donors" have been respected and how the Commissioners have failed utterly to appreciate what was intended by a "just and faithful distribution." I would like at the outset to ask a question and supply the answer myself, and I think the House will agree with both. What is the intention of subscribers to such funds as are administered by the Patriotic Commissioners? My conception is that those who subscribe to a fund for a particular set of sufferers desire, undoubtedly, that it should be gradually but completely exhausted for their benefit. I think that is the motive which actuates

  943
  everybody who subscribes at the present moment. I shall be able to show that that has not been the conception of the Patriotic Commissioners in dealing with the various funds which have been handed over to them, for their policy has been something quite contrary to that. They have not only disregarded the "generous intentions of the donors," but they have paid scant regard to the public opinion which has been raised against them time after time; in fact, their policy has been one of hoarding the funds entrusted to them. I do not think that there is a general knowledge as to what these funds are that are administered by the Patriotic Commissioners. Everybody appears to know of the fund which became associated with the Crimean War, but the funds administered by the Patriotic Commissioners are very numerous. They amount to as many as eighteen individual funds, most of which have been subscribed by the public for a Specific set of sufferers, and in addition to that they control large and permanent educational endowments which have been set aside by them from moneys subscribed by the public to the original Crimean Fund. Now, I propose to examine some of the funds in detail, in order to criticise the method of the Patriotic Commissioners, and I date my examination back from 1881, for a reason which I will presently make clear. The first fund I will take is that of the original Patriotic Fund subscribed in 1854, or about forty-six years ago. The original amount subscribed was £1,500,000. There remains of this to-day £607,000, or about two-fifths of the original amount, which includes the educational endowments. Here I might I say that the setting aside of sums of money from this fund for permanent educational endowments is contrary to the wishes of the public and to the instruction of the proclamation of the Queen which called the Commissioners into being. They had no more right to devote money to permanent educational endowment than would the Lord Mayor to-day have to build and permanently endow a school or institution from the funds now being collected under his ægis. From the moment the Patriotic Commissioners took that course they got into difficulties, and they had continued from then until now to bear the weight of their original sin. A Government inquiry was, however, held, and in the result they condoned that offence and
  944
  passed an Act legalising the illegality. Now, in 1881 the capital, excluding the permanent education endowments, which amounted to £237,500, amounted to £481,000, and the liabilities on the Fund were to 2,306 widows and 303 orphans, and there was a surplus of assets of £62,000. I will pass now to 1896, and what do we find? The liabilities had fallen for widows from 2,306 in 1881 to 1,244, and for orphans from 303 in the former period to 16, while the surplus assets had mounted up to the enormous sum of £109,000, the capital remaining at practically £400,000. Over all this area of time the surplus was augmented, and over all the liabilities were naturally decreased. In spite of these facts, however, no attempt whatever was made to administer this surplus for the benefit of the poor persons for whom the Fund was originally subscribed. The next fund, which I will deal with only briefly, is the "Captain" Fund. It was subscribed thirty years ago, in 1870, the original amount being £40,000. Of this there is still £37,000 remaining. Now, when people subscribe to these funds they have a right to demand that they shall be exhausted for the benefit of the people whom it was sought to benefit. Let us see what happened. In 1881—I will tell you presently why I take 1881—the capital stood at £31,700. The liabilities were as to 109 widows and 77 orphans, and there was a surplus of £7,500. Last year, in 1898, that is, the number of widows had fallen to eighty, and all the children had disappeared; but the surplus had mounted up to £17,000. Now, no additional annuitant had been put on this fund of the dependents of those men who lost their lives in Her Majesty's ship "Captain"; and the terms of my Amendment are framed with a view to detaching these surpluses, and making them applicable to the present war. The next fund is that of the "Eurydice," which was subscribed to relieve the necessities of the relatives of those who were lost in H.M.S. "Eurydice," which went down in 1878. The original amount subscribed was altogether £19,000, £3,000 of which was devoted to the Royal Naval Reserve Fund, leaving the amount appropriated to the "Eurydice" Fund at £16,000. After the twenty-two years which have elapsed since the Fund was subscribed there

  945
  now remains £15,100, or nearly the whole of the original amount subscribed. In 1881 the capital stood at £15,000. There were thirty-eight widows and forty-seven orphans. Moreover, the surplus, which in the first year was £930, stood in 1898 at £4,800. To-day the capital is £15,100, and there are receiving relief thirty-three widows and one child. The Zulu War Fund is the next I deal with, and it is in a similar condition. It was subscribed in 1879, the original amount being £25,500; and to-day it stands even higher than it did at its inception, for it amounts to £27,500. There are certain particular features about this fund that I would like to lay before the House, all pointing to the defective policy pursued by the Patriotic Commissioners in distributing this fund. It was considered to be a poor fund, and the Royal Patriotic Commissioners arranged originally that the widows of those who were under the rank of an officer, that is to say, of non-commissioned officers and privates, should receive no more than 3s. 6d. per week and 1s. for every child. A large percentage of these widows remarried and went off the fund. That took place within three or four years of the conclusion of the Zulu War, and this fund, supposed to be a poor one, showed a surplus of over £6,200 in 1883. The Commissioners then decided to raise the pensions of the widows of the non-commissioned officers. But here is a most curious fact which I would like you to consider, viz., that while the non-commissioned officers' widows had the increase, the allowance to the widows of privates was not increased. They continued to receive the 3s. 6d. per week and 1s. per child. Up to 1883 the surplus assets amounted to £6,200. In 1886, in spite of the increase to widows of non-commissioned officers, the figures went up higher still, and in 1889 the surplus increased to £12,500. At that moment the Commissioners were spending less than their income, and yet the pensions to the widows of privates remained the same. In 1892 the surplus had become further augmented to £12,600; and then, and then only, the widows of the most needy class of recipients received an increase on that miserable pittance of 3s. 6d. per week which they had been receiving for nine years. It was raised to 5s. per week, and 2s. per child. May I say,
  946
  here, that these figures are not my own; I took them from the Patriotic Commissioners' reports, hence they cannot claim ignorance of these facts. The Royal Naval Relief Fund is the next. It was started in 1879; but it was not a fund to which the public had subscribed. It consisted of a sum detached from the "Eurydice" fund, of £3,000, and also a fund subscribed in relief of the sufferers by the explosion on board H.M.S. "Thunderer" of £2,000. Out of the original combined total of £5,000 there remains a sum of £8,000. Now the average expenditure of this fund has never exceeded £50 a year, though the total subscribed amounts to no less than £8,000. It is burdened with no more than two widows and two orphans. I pass on to the Rodriguez Fund, which will certainly require some explanation. It was bequeathed in 1857, and was the bequest of Don Francisco Rodriguez, of Manilla, who in a generous moment presented a large sum of money to this country "for the relief of the families of English subjects wounded or dying in the wars." The original amount handed over to the Commissioners in 1865 was £7,400; and there remains to-day of this bequest no less than £16,000. The fund has been hoarded all these years till it has reached that sum. Now, since 1863—when the fund was partially handed over—the balance being handed over in 1865—up to 1880 not a single penny was spent. Can anybody assert for a single moment that nobody was wounded or died in the wars whose necessities did not command alleviation in that period under the bequest? [An HON. MEMBER: What about the indigent families?] The question seems to be whether or not the Commissioners were handicapped by certain conditions imposed by the trust. Certainly it depends upon the conditions of the fund; but I would remind the hon. Member that the Act of Parliament swept away all those conditions. Another bequest of a Greek merchant, Sir Constantine Zervudachi, is that known as the Zervudachi Fund, instituted in 1883 with the gift of £1,300. It has increased to £2,000; but not a penny was spent till the Parliamentary Committee held its inquiry, since when about £30 a year has been distributed. I now pass to a fund to which I have already made some reference in the course of my speech, one not subscribed by the public at all. It is the Soldiers' Effects Fund,

  947
  being formed of the unclaimed balances of soldiers' effects transferred by the War Office under the Regimental Debts Act of 1863. It would appear that a sufficient number of persons eligible to utilise this fund could not be discovered, and it was said by the Commissioners, "we have had no application for relief," though its scope was of the widest character, including death by wounds in war, accident, and, in short, any cause attributable to service. The War Office was guilty of a grave dereliction of duty to allow money to pass out of their hands to be administered by a foreign body over whom they had no control. The first instalment was paid over in 1884 by the War Department to the Patriotic Commissioners. The sum was £44,000. In 1890 this had augmented to £93,000; in 1895 it had increased to £134,000; in 1898 to £155,000; and to-day, in reply to a question, my hon. friend mentioned that the fund had increased to £160,000. The income of the Soldiers' Effects Fund for the last four years has been £20,676, yet out of it all the insignificant sum of £4,513 has been spent, or practically only one-fourth of the whole. Sir, whatever may be the explanation of this hoarding up to the present time, for the future there will be plenty of beneficiaries who will require all the assistance they can get, in respect of the benefits they are entitled to. I have endeavoured, Sir, to set out these funds in detail in order to prove my case, and I submit that there are, firstly, available surpluses from many funds that cannot now by lapse of time be applied to their original purpose and that therefore they ought to be detached and utilised for kindred purposes; secondly, there are accumulations—I distinguish between accumulations and surpluses; arising from the fact that the uncharged capital has not been utilised at all. I ask if there is any justification for this policy of accumulation of these funds? Have there been any fettering restrictions? My hon. friend suggested that some are subject to restrictions. Now in 1881, as the result of the departmental inquiry into the maladministration of the Patriotic Fund, the Government expressly passed an Act of Parliament to enable the Commission to deal with all their surpluses as they might accumulate from time to time, and whatever justification they may have had prior to then, no
  948
  valid excuse could be offered for all this continued hoarding, because the Commissioners had this Act of Parliament whereby an application could be made to the Secretary of State for War in order to make the surpluses available. But I would like the House to bear with me for a moment, while I examine the case as presented by the Patriotic Commissioners themselves. The Chairman of the Executive Fund of the Royal Patriotic Commission is a gentleman who bears an honoured name—Lord Nelson. He is the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Royal Patriotic Commission. He did me the honour to reply in the press a few weeks ago to certain strictures I had passed on their policy, complaining of their delay in not having availed themselves of this Act for utilising their surplus funds. "Our answer is"—Lord Nelson states—"that we were continually applying to successive Governments to extend the power of the original Commission, but only obtained power to deal with the surplus of the Patriotic Fund in 1897." Well, what are the facts? Sir, no application was made to any Government until after the Parliamentary Committee was appointed, and yet the Chairman of the Executive and Finance Committee assures us that repeated applications were made to "successive Governments." The Select Committee was appointed in February, 1895, and it was not until April of that year that the Royal Commissioners showed a feverish anxiety to put this Act into force. The Secretary of State for War at that time was the present Leader of the Opposition, and in reply to the application which was made he said that he preferred to await the Report of the Select Parliamentary Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the Patriotic Funds. In June of that year the Rosebery Government fell and Lord Lansdowne went to the War Office. A renewed application was made, which brought the following caustic reply—
  "Whilst fully recognising the position in which the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund are placed by the receipt of many deserving applications for relief, which the Commissioners are unable to afford, though possessed of ample funds, he could not consent to the proposal of the Commissioners, pending the report of the Parliamentary Committee."
  So much for the excuse proffered by the Chairman of the Patriotic Commissioners

  949
  for their delay. Well, now I will deal with the excuse he offers for the hoarding of these funds. He admits practically all my figures as to the surpluses, and he also admits there are large accumulations. But he meets us with the startling proposition that for certain of these funds, notably the "Soldiers' Effects Fund" and the "Rodriguez Fund," they are only indirectly responsible. Lord Nelson said—
  "The Soldiers' Effects Fund is administered by us under directions from the War Office, and it will be for the War Office and not us to say whether the interest only or the capital is to be dealt with."
  That was not true, for the War Office had nothing to do with the Soldiers' Effects Fund, which is administered and regulated by Royal Warrant; and if the House will bear with me for a moment, I will read the terms of the Royal Warrant which alone regulates its distribution. It directs—
  "All residues and income and accumulations of income so to be paid over or transferred as aforesaid from time to time, shall form one fund to be called the 'Soldiers' Effects Fund,' to be under the management and control of the Executive Committee for the time being, of Our Commissioners for the time being of the said Patriotic Fund, but subject to and under such orders and regulations as may from time to time be made by Our said Commissioners, or any three or more of them, and shall be applied in payment of such compassionate, annual, or other allowances, to the widows and children or other dependent relatives of soldiers dying on service, or within six months after discharge, and generally in such manner for the benefit of such widows and children or other dependent relatives of soldiers dying as aforesaid, as the said Executive Committee, or any two or more of them, shall, from time to time, think fit, preferential consideration being given to the widows and children of soldiers on the married establishment, who—

  "(a.) Were killed in action, or died of wounds received in action, or from illness which can be directly traced to fatigue, privation, or exposure incident to active operations in the field, within twelve months of sustaining such wound or contracting such illness.

  "(b.) Died from an injury directly traceable to military duty within twelve months of sustaining such injury.

  "(c.) Died from illness directly traceable to fatigue, privation or exposure in the performance of military duty.

  "The widows and children of mobilised Army Reserve men dying as aforesaid shall be considered as on the married establishment."
  As regards the accumulation of the Rodriguez Fund, Lord Nelson says—
  "There were peculiar clauses which required legal definition causing some delay."
  950
  It is rather an extravagant excuse to say that there were legal difficulties and clauses which require definition in regard to a fund which was handed over in the year 1863, because those difficulties ought to have been discovered and dealt with long ago. I should have thought the Commissioners would have got rid of all those difficulties during the time which they have been hoarding up this fund. An explanation may be offered by somebody who will probably speak in this debate that it is the actuarial advice which governs the action of the Patriotic Commissioners in this matter. The Commissioners employ one of the most distinguished actuaries of the day, for he is a man well known and at the head of his profession. He is employed to audit their accounts, and possibly my hon. and gallant friend may attempt to explain some of these matters by saying that the Commissioners acted upon the advice of the actuary. But the actuary has no advising power in connection with the Royal Patriotic Commission, and he attempts to give no advice whatever. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!] I cross-examined the actuary myself before the Committee upstairs, and he assured that Select Committee that his position began and ended at this—that he gave no advice whatever, but when there was a specification handed to him setting out so many widows, so many re-married women, and so forth he made a report upon it. The Select Parliamentary Committee found that there were surpluses of £107,000 available, and accumulations of £160,000 which ought to be utilised. But notwithstanding this finding nothing has happened since except that the accumulations have gone on accumulating, and the surpluses have gone on increasing. They applied to the Minister for War for a supplementary Commission, which they obtained, but it was a mere sham and delusion. They set aside a surplus amounting to £110,000 of the original Patriotic Fund, on the pretence that they were going to utilise it. What has happened? It was set aside in 1897, and in the first year they spent £230 only. The next year this fund amounted to £117,000, and they spent £3,700. They have placed on the fund a number of aged and decayed widows, whose husbands fought for us in the Crimea forty-five years ago. To show the cruelty of this belated policy, let me ask the House to bear with me a

  951
  little longer while I mention the ages of the pensioners who have just been put on this fund, and who ought to have been put on many years ago. I will take 362 recipients. Of this total 65 are of an average age of 70 years, 116 average 75, 117 average 80 years, 53 average 85 years, and 11 have an average of over 90 years of age. It seems incredible that these Patriotic Commissioners should have had the heartlessness to keep these poor old women out of the benefit of the money for so many years. They may argue that these poor people were not entitled to it at all, but I say that if the Commissioners had done their duty the fund would have been exhausted on behalf of those who were originally intended to be benefited. I would now like to say one or two words in the nature of a historical survey of the career of this body. The Patriotic Commissioners have entirely lost the confidence of the public, in fact they lost that confidence forty years ago. The Commission has been in hot water either with the Government or the public throughout the whole of its career. In 1881 a joint departmental inquiry was held, Sir Robert Hamilton and Mr. Lefroy being entrusted with it. After that inquiry Mr. Childers and Lord Northbrook came to the conclusion that the only cure for the Royal Patriotic Commission was to dissolve it, and they gave them notice to that effect, and they only afterwards escaped dissolution by the skin of their teeth. But even this did not reform them, and they never will be reformed. Let me remind the House what happened in 1893 in connection with the "Victoria" disaster. Then the nation made large contributions, and £70,000 was handed over to the Patriotic Commissioners in June. But not until the following November—four months after the disaster—did these Commissioners distribute a single penny, the delay being defended on the ground that other funds were being administered and they were desperately afraid of overlapping. We succeeded at that time in awakening public opinion. The amount it was originally intended to give to the widows was only 3s. 6d. a week, and the result of the agitation was that the pensions were nearly doubled. What explanation did the Commissioners offer? Did they admit the truth, that it was fear and fear alone of public censure which made them increase these pensions? No, they asked us to
  952
  believe that the original allotment was purely provisional. I myself moved in this House for a return of the pensions they had allotted. They made that return on the lower scale of pensions, and, as I argued before the Committee upstairs, and as I repeat now, it was a most improbable thing that the Patriotic Fund Commissioners should have made a return to this House of a scale of pensions altogether different from that which they finally intended to allot. They had no intention whatever of fully utilising the Victoria Fund. They intended to hoard it precisely as they had hoarded other funds. Well, I am glad to say we secured a more liberal distribution of that fund, and I hope that the result of this debate will be that the other funds in the possession of the Commissioners will be similarly dealt with. After all, the question is, what is to be done? I have followed this matter since 1893, and I believe that nothing but Government intervention will rid the country of this abuse. It may be a question of reforming or dissolving the body—I care not which, though if I had my choice I would prefer that it should be dissolved—but there should be an independent valuation of the whole of the funds controlled by these gentlemen. When I speak of an independent I mean an actuarial valuation. I am not suggesting that Mr. Finlaison should not be consulted, but that the examination should partake of the character of that carried out by our great insurance offices. Let there be an investigation as to the liabilities and the contingent liabilities to provide for the beneficaries, but do not let us go on year after year with these visible surpluses, especially when a time of national distress has arrived in connection with our losses in the present war, when every penny is required. I assert that if the Government will only carry out our suggestion they will find they can get at once from the Patriotic Commissioners' hoard a sum not less than £500,000, not including the £270,000 which unfortunately was handed to them by the Lord Mayor recently. It amounts to this, that there is practically within the grasp of the Government for the benefit of the widows and orphans of those who have lost, or may lose, their lives in the war, a sum larger than the amount subscribed to the Mansion House Fund. How can they

  953
  afford to disregard this appeal? Can they offer the excuse that what I have said is not true? I have given details, and I hope I have convinced the House that a great scandal exists which ought to be brought to an end. Some of us have tried for many years to bring that about. The Commissioners are a most influential body. We are not attacking them individually, but those managing the fund entrench themselves behind such great names as the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and the Governor of the Bank of England, who are Commissioners, but who take no active part in the administration of the fund. The fact is that the fund is managed by the permanent secretary and a small coterie, and that there is, therefore, maladministration. A letter was published the other day from Sir George Hayter Chubb in reply to something I had said, and it merely quoted the names of the distinguished men on the body, and asked, "What is the good of anyone attempting to suggest that this fund is not properly administered?" These great names make up what is called in financial circles a good "front page." The fund is not properly administered. A million of money is concerned; it wants proper control, and I hope the Government will now take steps in the matter. I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name.
  MR. BAYLEY: My first duty is to congratulate my hon. friend on the very able and lucid statement he has given in reference to the Patriotic Fund, and my second to associate myself with the view that perhaps the greatest trouble of our brave, soldiers, who are in a difficult and trying position at the front to-day, is, if they should be killed or wounded to-morrow, what would become of those dependent on them? And I consider it is the duty of this House to do everything possible to make our soldiers' minds as comfortable as we can, and also the minds of their dependents at home—their mothers, wives, and children—who have a right to our sympathy, and who number hundreds of thousands. There is one fact not disputed in connection with these funds, and that is that they are badly administered, and not administered in a businesslike manner. That is a proposition which I believe
  954
  anyone who has looked into the reports must acknowledge. My second proposition is that although we appointed a Committee to inquire into and report on this matter, practically nothing has been done, and what little has been done has not touched the real grievance. My third proposition is that a public duty attempted to be performed by charity has been an absolute failure. A few years ago the Colonial Secretary brought in an Employers' Liability Bill, whereby the dependents of any person killed or any person injured had a claim against the employer concerned. Why not apply the same, principle to our soldiers and sailors when killed or wounded on active service as is applied to the soldiers of industry? That is a suggestion which I hope the Colonial Secretary, with his great power in the Cabinet, will consider and carry out. I believe it would be most popular in the country, and I am sure the Government do not desire that the servants of the State should be in a worse position than other employees. Doing this business by charity has failed and failed ignominiously, notwithstanding the great names attached to the fund, as these gentlemen do not give an hour's work to it, and cannot be expected to. I will give one illustration not mentioned by my hon. friend to show how the fund has been administered. I refer to the administration of the Balaclava Fund. A sum was subscribed for the men who survived the Balaclava charge. About twenty-three of them are alive now. The common-sense principle would have been to purchase annuities for these men; but nothing of the sort was done, and when the last man on the fund is dead there will be about £2,000 left. If the last man or the two or three last men went to a clever solicitor, and if the matter were brought into the courts, I believe they could claim every penny. The money was subscribed absolutely for them, and the Royal Patriotic Fund has neither a legal nor a moral right to keep the money from them. While I speak with the highest respect of the very honourable men connected with the fund, I must say they neglected their duty in allowing some of these men to go into the workhouse because they did not receive the money which belonged to them. I sincerely hope the Government will now go seriously into this question and settle this fund on the basis of the

  955
  recommendations of the Committee of this House. I hope they will go further and relieve the anxiety of our soldiers, who are fighting well under the most difficult and trying circumstances with which the British Army has ever had to contend. I beg, Sir, to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But we desire humbly to represent to Your Majesty that it is the duty of Your Majesty's present advisers to take immediate and effective action to ensure that, the accumulations and available surpluses of various funds administered by the Royal Patriotic Commissions should be applied for the benefit of the widows and children of officers and men of Your Majesty's military and naval forces who lose their lives in the war in South Africa.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I feel it my duty to offer a few observations in reply to the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the executive committee of the "Captain" Relief Fund. The hon. Member for Devonport deserves much credit for the interest he has shown in the general administration of the Patriotic Fund, but when he says that the public have lost confidence in the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, I think the hon. Gentleman must bear a great deal of the responsibility for that want of confidence. He has brought charges of a very serious character against the Commissioners, and obtained a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry; but the result of that investigation was practically to absolve the Commissioners from the serious charges brought against them. I have not much fault to find with the form in which he has brought forward his Amendment—
  "That the accumulations and available surpluses of various funds administered by the Royal Patriotic Commissioners should be applied for the benefit of the widows and children of officers and men of the military and naval forces who lose their lives in the war in South Africa."
  I think that suggestion is not objectionable, and might be fairly well entertained. But the hon. Member did not seem to have sufficient regard, in his attack on the administration, to the fact that many of those funds to which he alluded are governed by distinct trusts and conditions.
  956
  I am not competent to deal with all the funds, but only with the "Captain" Fund, for it was mainly at my suggestion that that fund in 1872 was handed over to the Patriotic Commissioners. It was handed over under a distinct trust deed, the terms of which were settled with legal assistance.
  MR. KEARLEY: Does my hon. and gallant friend maintain that the "Captain" Fund is still subject to that deed? If he looks at the schedule of the Patriotic Fund Act of 1881 he will find that the fund was expressly scheduled there with many other funds, so that the surplus could be applied irrespective of the trust deed.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: It is possible that the surplus may be given to some other naval object. There is a provision in the deed that after every care has been taken to meet the claims of every widow and orphan who had a claim on the fund the balance should be handed over to the Royal Naval Relief Fund. This was, in fact, the first nucleus of the Royal Naval Relief Fund. Surely my hon. friend will not deny that it is necessary to make actuarial calculations when you have to deal with widows and children, and the actuary has to allow a considerable margin for epidemics of disease. I believe that the "Captain" Fund, as well as all the other funds, has been admirably administered. The hon. Gentleman stated that the surplus of the "Captain" Fund has grown to such dimensions that it now amounts to £37,000. But the hon. Gentleman forgot that that might be due to the wisdom with which the funds were invested. It was at first proposed to invest the whole of the "Captain" Fund in Three per Cent. Consols. I opposed that tooth and nail, and at my suggestion one-third was invested in New South Wales Government Stock, one third in Canadian Stock, and one third in Indian railways. These investments have largely grown. The pensions and scale of allowances to widows and children with a claim on the fund were based on the same lines as those applied in the administration of the Crimean funds. There must be some principle in the administration of every fund. The Commissioners are trustees for the subscribers, but I do not share the view of my hon. friend, who goes so far as to say that the funds sub-

  957
  scribed should be used entirely for those for whom they were subscribed, without any reservation whatever. For if the nation were to subscribe an enormously large amount to a fund, as has been the case in the present war, it might be that the widows would be placed in the position of being infinitely better off than if their husbands were alive. My hon. friend is illogical, for by the terms of his Amendment he proposes to depart from the principle he has laid down, and to take away the accumulations of the old funds, and apply them to sufferers from the war in South Africa. I do not object to that, for I agree that it would be a very good thing if a reasonable amount of these surpluses were applied to widows and orphans of men who have lost their lives in the South African War. At the present time, however, I do not think the Commissioners would be justified in transferring the whole surplus of the "Captain" Fund to the Royal Naval Relief Fund. The hon. Member for Chesterfield may have possibly some ground of censure of the Patriotic Commissioners for undue delay in granting relief. I believe that that mode of administration has been remedied. I quite agree that immediate relief is necessary, even if it be only a small sum, until adequate inquiry has been made; but my belief is that the delay is caused by the enormous number of applicants, and it takes time to make the necessary enquiries. The Patriotic Fund Commissioners have worked laboriously and well, particularly the Secretary, who is one of the ablest men I have ever come across in administering charitable funds. The public mind had been unduly poisoned against the administration of the Fund. The hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the fund would be transferred to the War Office. I trust that that will never be done, for the War Office has enough to do with its proper duties. In the present administration there is a most admirable machinery, tested by the experience of years. It may require some reform; then reform it by all means, and make it a perfect machine. It ramifies all over the country, and, with the aid of district paymasters and the Post Office, I do not know that the mind of man could much improve on it. If there be defects, let them be remedied; but do not let the hon. Member offer up to public opprobrium and scorn the efforts of men who
  958
  have been labouring to do their duty to the nation and as trustees for the subscribers to the funds. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his motion to a division.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that if proof were needed of the necessity for reform, it was supplied in the defence of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners which the House had just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne. A paper had been issued, stating that the Commissioners were perfectly right in hoarding up their funds, as long as one person existed with a claim on the funds. That meant that the £220,000 subscribed to the Lord Mayor's Fund for widows and orphans in the present war was not to be touched so long as one widow or orphan remained.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I do not go so far as that. Provided you leave a sufficient margin for the widows and orphans, I am quite willing that the balance should be transferred to the Royal Naval Relief Fund and the Royal Military Relief Fund.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman held that the Commissioners had the confidence of the public. He denied that, and would show how that confidence had been lost. When the Lord Mayor opened the Mansion House War Fund, he announced that the money, except sums ear-marked for any particular purpose, would be handed over to the Patriotic Commissioners, and £220,000 subscribed was disposed of in that way. At the Mansion House Conference the whole question of the administration of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners was brought before the public, and the Lord Mayor took the right to deal with the funds as he thought fit. Since then, another £100,000 had been subscribed. Her Gracious Majesty, through the Home Secretary, suggested what was now known as "Queen's Sunday," and the result was that the magnificent sum of £60,000 was raised in the churches throughout the country. That money was dealt with by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and they expressly stated the objects to which they wished that money to be devoted. Amongst these objects was not found the Patriotic Fund. He

  959
  maintained that the public had entirely lost confidence in the Patriotic Fund Commissioners. His hon. friend had suggested that the surpluses should be devoted to the widows and orphans of the soldiers and sailors who had fallen in the present war. To that no one would offer the slightest objection; but how were the surpluses to be applied in the future? He held that a very grave duty devolved on Her Majesty's Government in regard to these funds. At the present time utter chaos reigned in the administration of the various funds. There was overlapping in all the various funds, and the policy of the Commissioners had vacillated so much that he was at a loss to understand whether they had any policy of dealing with the widows and orphans of the present war. There was another fund in which the country had full confidence. The Daily Telegraph Fund was dealt with almost entirely on the lines of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment. The widows and orphans were provided for by purchasing Post Office annuities, and that was the only practical way in which the widows and orphans could be dealt with. He thought the Daily Telegraph deserved the highest praise for having come forward, at a time when something definite was needed, with their scheme, and for having got the money which would have gone to the Patriotic Commissioners if these Commissioners had had the confidence of the country. There were the Imperial War Fund and local war funds, and all these funds should be added to the surplus of the Patriotic Fund, the whole taken over by the Government and administered by the War Office, or somebody under the War Office, so that an end might be put to the absolute chaos which at present reigned in the administration.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): I certainly have no complaint whatever to make of the manner in which my hon. friend the Member for Devonport has brought this matter before the House at the present moment. He has always shown, if I may say so, a most intelligent and patriotic interest in this question, and has made himself a complete master of it. Undoubtedly at the present moment our deepest sympathies are enlisted on behalf
  960
  of the widows and orphans of our soldiers and our sailors. I suppose there is nothing at the present time which is more deeply moving our population than the present war; and the generous response to appeals on behalf of our brave soldiers' widows and orphans is sufficient proof of it. But, Sir, in regard to the particular motion, we have to deal not with the past, but with the future, and therefore I shall not attempt to follow my hon. friend in the history of the Patriotic Fund which he has laid before the House. In some points I should not be able to entirely agree with the hon. Member, but for the most part what he has told us is substantially accurate. I am afraid that the course which the Patriotic Fund Commissioners have adopted for many years has not had the full approval of the public; but it must be remembered that they are trustees, and it is certainly true that they have only acted as they believed they were bound to do, as honest and honourable guardians of the money placed at their disposal. We may differ from them as to the methods they have adopted or as to the views they have held; but unquestionably they have been guided by one motive only, and that is the interest of the beneficiaries committed to their charge. At the same time I am afraid that public opinion about them is that they have conducted their operations very much upon the principles which are supposed to govern a very interesting bird called the magpie, who always hides the coin. Well, Sir, some observations were made by my hon. friend with regard to the actuarial advice, or actuarial calculations, by which they had been guided. Now, it is perfectly true that the results arrived at are very largely guided by the specification and by the circumstances of each case, and I do not follow my hon. friend when he says that there is very much room for error. When you have so many persons of such and such an age, receiving a certain weekly sum, it is not a very difficult calculation to make when you have the facts before you, and therefore I think that in all probability, in respect to what my hon. friend has said, the results which Mr. Finlaison has from time to time laid before the Patriotic Commissioners are practical results, and such as should guide them. For myself I

  961
  think that all these funds ought to be administered on the same principle. I do not think that the corpus of one fund ought to be kept—unless there is an enactment to that effect—and the corpus of another fund distributed. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if not only the funds which we are discussing, but every fund which is now being distributed, could be administered by one hand and on one principle. Great waste and much overlapping would be avoided if something of that kind could be brought about, and I think it would be a very patriotic and beneficial action if some influential person would take the matter in hand and get a body of persons together in whom the country and the contributors to the funds would have confidence. Administered thus on one principle it might operate for the benefit of the relatives of all soldiers and sailors who would ever come upon their country for support. In regard to the Soldiers' Effects Fund I would like to impress upon the House what my hon. friend behind me said—that it is a diminishing and a dying fund. It is largely made up of deferred pay, which is practically abolished, and therefore it would not be a matter for astonishment if, in the course of a very few years, it were to cease to exist altogether. But in regard to this fund we are tied down by the terms of the Act of Parliament. The Royal warrant provides only for the distribution of the interest and not the corpus of the fund.
  MR. LOUGH: Does that apply to all the funds administered by the Patriotic Commissioners?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, only to the Soldiers' Effects Fund. My hon. friend made some observations as to the course taken in regard to that fund. He expressed his opinion as to the taking over of the fund by the Patriotic Commissioners. It was found that there had been overlapping in the relief of some individuals. It was also found that in all probability the Patriotic Fund Commissioners had means of information far wider and far more accurate at their disposal than the War Office possessed; and it was for this reason that it was thought desirable that the fund should be put into the hands that now administer it. Now, in regard to these matters, I would like to remind the House of what
  962
  the position is. The Patriotic Fund was originally subscribed, as the House is aware, for certain widows and children of soldiers and sailors. There was, at the time of the new Commission, a certain number of widows and children upon the fund, and the actuarial calculation is that when the claims of those at present on the fund are exhausted the fund will have left in it only about £17,000. That is the calculation to-day.
  MR. KEARLEY: Is the hon. Member referring to what is now called the Crimean Patriotic Fund?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes. In respect to the persons for whom the fund was originally subscribed the surplus on the actuarial calculation is only £17,000 at this moment. But that is not an excessive sum to have to provide for contingencies. The actuarial calculations might prove inaccurate; the claimants on the fund might live longer than expected, and it is desirable that there should be some kind of surplus. [An HON. MEMBER: Is that the face value in December, 1895, or the selling value of the securities in 1896?] I take the figures which the hon. Member has in his hand, the actuarial valuation of the securities, not their face value. When the new Commission was issued, under which not only widows and children, but other dependents of persons for whom the fund was subscribed, became entitled to relief—that is, not merely the widows of soldiers who lost their lives, but who only served in the Crimean War—it provided for the fund to be distributed, and a new fund was set up; and the Commissioners now annually transfer the surplus of the old fund to the new one. My hon. friend is entitled to this explanation that the new fund is not administered upon the principles of the old one. The old fund is being exhausted not only in regard to the income, but also as to the corpus, for the benefit of the persons for whom it was subscribed. With regard to the new fund, it is the income only which is being distributed. If I am asked to explain why, I do not know why there should be a difference of distribution between the two. I do not know why the new fund should be hoarded and the old one distributed. That is a point for the Commissioners. When all the claimants who are on the

  963
  old fund have passed away there will not, in all probability, be a surplus of more than £10,000, according to the actuarial calculation.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid there was a very important point involved in this "passing away," and asked for some information as to its purport.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The passing away of the old claimants does not really matter. The answer of the Commissioners in regard to that is this: We have taken upon the new fund a little over 500 widows older in age, regarding them as the more deserving. But in addition to these 500 there are, we are told, 800 more widows who, under the new Commission, are entitled to the benefit of the fund, but who cannot receive it because the Commissioners had not the funds to give them relief. Now, the course the Commissioners take, therefore, is this: they only spend the income of the fund for the time being, because if they spent the corpus, the total of the new fund will be distributed over only a comparatively small number of recipients entitled to benefit. Now, I can promise that it is our intention, on behalf of the Government, to urge upon the Patriotic Commissioners not only that they should get a new valuation of their assets, but also to go seriously into the whole question. That is to say, that Lord Lansdowne will make a communication to the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, informing them that the terms on which their calculation is based have been challenged in this House, and so get the whole thing looked into in order to see that the calculations they make are based upon accurate figures. I think I may say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne that we are prepared to go into the question with a view to seeing if any re-arrangement be possible of the methods governing the distribution, and the terms of the trust upon which the money is held. Under these circumstances I trust my hon. friend will not press his motion to a division, but will rest satisfied with this assurance that the Government fully realise the importance of this question and quite see the force of the criticisms which he has addressed to us in his able speech.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I do not propose to detain the House at
  964
  any considerable length, more especially as my hon. friend the Member for Devonport has dealt so exhaustively with this question. I am sure that there is no man who wears the Queen's uniform who will not be grateful to my hon. friend the Member for Devonport for the vast amount of time and attention he has given to this question for many years past, and it is almost solely due to his exertions that the question comes before the House at such an opportune moment. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office has made, in my opinion, but a very faltering defence of the Patriotic Commissioners. If we look into the past, how do we find that this body has done its duty? We find that they controlled a sum of one and a half millions, and they proceeded to deal with that sum by misdirecting the use of the money committed to their charge. They erected, amongst other things, a school without properly endowing it; they got into grave financial difficulties, and their conduct was inquired into by the Government. They endeavoured to minimise the surplus of the various funds, and after having taken into consideration every contingency they actually instructed Mr. Finlaison, their auditor, to arrange a sum of no less than £6,000 in addition to that. And I ask the House, therefore, in face of these facts, whether or not they have followed out the intentions of Parliament in regard to this matter—that is to say, to ensure the full distribution of the fund as expressed in the Acts. I say they have failed in their duty to the widow and orphan. My other point against them is this: that they seem to have been influenced by narrow sectarian motives. For instance, there were large numbers of men who were Catholics in the Crimean War. When they erected these schools (it was true they permitted Roman Catholic children to enter these schools) they were not availed of by the Roman Catholics as they might have been, for everybody knows that adherents to the Roman Catholic faith will go to great lengths to have their children educated in a Roman Catholic institution. Large numbers of these children were kept waiting for entrance into the various Roman Catholic schools, and when there was an outcry about the matter there was allocated a very small sum, out of all proportion to the number of children who were waiting, for their support. I

  965
  now come to the question of the increase of the assets. The Commissioners acknowledge that for fifteen years these assets were constantly increasing, and it was only when they had accumulated to such an extent the Commissioners were shamed into doing it, that they consented to replace the re-married widows upon the establishment. Until 1895 they refused applications over and over again, and dealt with these poor widows in a narrow and highly regrettable spirit. As regards the Zulu War Fund, the corpus of which was something like £25,000, handed over to the Commissioners in 1879, that fund after a period of sixteen years stood at almost the same figure, and yet these Commissioners never increased the paltry sum of 3s. 6d. per week which was allowed to the people who were entitled to every penny of the fund. The Soldiers' Effects Fund has been dealt with, but I would point out that between 1885 and 1893, the surplus of that fund grew from £21,000 to £106,000. I know it was receiving constant support from the War Office, that constant accretions came in from the effects of soldiers dying intestate in the field, but what is the excuse of the Commissioners for not dealing with this fund? They had power under the Act to deal with applicants under three different headings. They dealt with them under heading (a), but they objected to deal with those under headings (b) and (c); because, forsooth, they were unable to relieve all the applicants they decided to relieve none. I think that fully justifies the mover of this Amendment in saying that they followed a policy of hoarding up. Then there is the Rodriguez Fund, which had an income of £508, and yet the demands never exceeded £104 per annum. As to the Victoria Fund, the Commissioners themselves were obliged to acknowledge that they had pursued a tardy and parsimonious policy. The way in which that fund was administered gave rise to a discussion in the public press and in this House, and had the pensions been continued on the original scale we have the actuary's statement that little more than 11s. 6d. out of every £ would have been expended. In fact, the Commissioners never attempted to administer the funds in the spirit in which the donors gave them until public opinion brought pressure to bear upon them. Their excuses as regards this particular fund were these:
  966
  that they had knowledge that local relief was going on; that the Admiralty were acting on the one hand; that the inadequacy of the pensions given to the different applicants was only a temporary measure; and that Miss Weston was at work locally giving relief to those who were in need of it. That is to say, they were in constant fear of overlapping. Could we have a stronger case for the whole of these funds being liberated, due provision being made for the present beneficiaries, than out of the mouths of the Commissioners themselves, when they acknowledge that they did not act up to their duty for fear of overlapping? In fact, because of the unfortunate jealousy which exists amongst, those who administer these various charitable funds, as they are called. As regards the Royal Naval Relief Fund, it was established by Royal Commission in June, 1875, but no effort was made on the part of the Royal Commission to attract public attention towards it. There have been many cases where the widows of men who lost their lives while on duty or in the Naval Service might have been relieved by this fund, but they never came on to the fund because they had no knowledge of its existence. As a consequence, when the Royal Naval Exhibition had a large fund at their disposal they objected to hand it over to the Royal Commissioners, deciding to administer it themselves. They have administered it with very good effect and in the most satisfactory manner. In other words, the contention of the mover of the Amendment that the Commissioners have lost the confidence of the public has, in my opinion, been proved up to the hilt. There are two further important funds, as well as a number of funds outside the control of the Royal Commission, which we would like to see dealt with, inasmuch as the corpus of these funds amounts to £370,000. Our contention is that an enlargement of powers is wanted. But if an enlargement of powers is about to be given, is it right and proper that those enlarged powers should be given to a body which has manifestly failed to do its duty? I do not desire to make a vindictive attack upon the Royal Commissioners as a whole. On the contrary, I consider, with the one exception that they have not managed the funds in the way intended by the donors, that they have acted up to the letter instead of the spirit

  967
  of the law, their affairs have been extremely well managed. They possess as secretary one of the most able and capable men for the purpose that could be found in the kingdom. Their position is that they have lost the support of the public at large, that they are damaging the interests and the welfare of the widows and children of our soldiers who may be killed in the present war, because large numbers of people who would give willingly to a fund for the purpose of assisting those people fail to give now in consequence of not being certain that the money will be managed as they would like. The policy of the Commissioners has been, as I say, if they cannot relieve all of a class to relieve none at all. What do we who take an interest in this subject, recommend? We recommend that these Commissioners, if they are not abolished and reconstituted, if a completely new body is not constituted, should be brought into harmony with public opinion; that the new body should not be drawn from one particular class, but that in it there should be a sprinkling of the different classes who take a deep interest in the Army and Navy, that it should contain a certain proportion of distinguished non-commissioned officers and a certain proportion of distinguished business men, who will see that the matter is run on business principles. We would like to see the co-operation with this body of the naval and military authorities, and, above all, the co-operation with that body of the staffs of various other associations throughout the country. It is well known that through the want of publicity many women entitled to come on these various funds have not done so, simply because they were ignorant of their right. There should be local committees at local centres, and above all we contend that there should be a "token" vote in Parliament to enable the country at large to exercise some control over the vast funds which their fellow countrymen have subscribed in the interests of the widows and children of soldiers who have given their lives for the country. This is a national duty. It is a duty which should not be left haphazard to a large number of societies here and there throughout the kingdom. Quite recently the country has subscribed to the Mansion House fund some £640,000, and to the fund of a London daily newspaper something like £115,000, while if you include all the
  968
  other agencies which have collected money for the sufferers by this present war, you get a total of something like £1,500,000. If that £1,500,000 be added to the £1,000,000 already possessed by the Royal Commissioners, you have the magnificent sum of £2,500,000 available for the widows and orphans of the soldiers who may be killed in the war. The hon. Member for South-west Manchester pointed out quite recently that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York objected to hand over to these Royal Commissioners the money they had succeeded in obtaining—partly, perhaps, because of the danger of overlapping. I was glad to hear from the Financial Secretary to the War Office that he hoped there would be no difference made between the widows of men on the strength of the regiment and those off the strength of the regiment. I hope there will be as little difference as possible made, although, in the first instance, no doubt there must be some. After all, whether a man is married with or without leave, his wife and children are undoubtedly just as dear to him, and the least we can do for our gallant soldiers who to-day are fighting in the front is to give them the consolation that if they die in their country's cause those whom they hold near and dear will not be neglected. Unfortunately we have on record a very black page in the history of this country. There is no man who has read the life of Nelson but has blushed with shame to think that England's greatest naval hero had his dying request neglected by the nation, and that the woman he loved died in actual want and penury in a foreign land. I hope that no such cant will enter into any arrangements that are made for the soldiers at the front. If there ever was a moment when such an appeal should go to the hearts of Members of this House this is the moment. There are few Members who have not some relative or friend engaged in this conflict, in connection with which we are led to believe there is fighting now going on in almost every area of the theatre of war. It would be the greatest consolation to every man engaged in that struggle if he could feel confident and certain, not that money would be showered into these funds, but that the funds would be publicly administered by a body appointed by Parliament, that the funds would be controlled by Parliament,

  969
  and that those near and dear to him would not suffer pecuniarily by his death.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: There is a fundamental difference of opinion which, I believe, lies at the bottom of all our troubles, and I am sure it is reflected in the minds of the House, and especially in the mind of my hon. friend who moved the Amendment. The point is this: The minority of the Committee thought that fund for a special cause ought to be exhausted in the assistance of beneficiaries under that special cause. That is the view of the minority. The majority take the view that it would not be right, when large sums of money were contributed, to exhaust them in favour of the beneficiaries. It was felt that perhaps it would not be fair to others to put widows in a much better position in life than they would have been had they not, unfortunately, lost their supporters. That has been the difficulty with which the Commissioners have had to deal in giving relief. The public have got hold of the idea that the funds which have been supplied for the sake of special purposes, instead of being given to beneficiaries, have been hoarded. That is the fundamental question which the House of Commons ought to decide, and to instruct the Commissioners upon: whether, when a sum larger than is required for a specific purpose is contributed, it is to be expended in favour of those beneficiaries, or whether it is proper and legal that it should be hoarded up, put aside, and afterwards applied to some other special purpose. I expect the House of Commons will agree that it is better that the whole of the money should not necessarily be applied in favour of the persons for whom it was given, but that if there is too much money it should be put on one side and afterwards used for the benefit of others who may be more or less suffering under certain circumstances. The Committee recommended, that the surplus funds should be lumped together in two classes, one for the Army and one for the Navy. In fact, if their recommendation had been carried out, I father think that all that my hon. friend now wants would substantially have been obtained. At any rate, whatever the War Office do, they ought to try to grapple with that admitted fundamental question which I have submitted to the House, and
  970
  to guide the Commissioners on that point.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): May I venture to make an appeal to the House on the subject of this Amendment. I am perfectly aware, of course, that this is a question which has always excited some interest—a good deal of interest in the minds of those concerned with this and analogous matters—but that interest sinks into insignificance compared with the public attention now devoted to this subject in consequence of the war, and the whole subject of the provision for the widows and orphans of those who are killed is naturally, and in my opinion quite properly, deeply engaging the public mind and conscience. I do not feel that I have enough detailed knowledge of the management of the Patriotic Fund, or of the controversy which has centred round that management for some years past, to be able usefully to give to the House any personal opinion. But I will undertake that some consideration shall be given to this matter, and not to this fund alone, but to the whole question raised by these great funds, to see whether by better organisation they may be so directed as to benefit those for whom they were intended in the manner which will produce the maximum of good. The public, both at the time of the Crimean War and on the occasion of the present war, have shown themselves generous beyond hope and expectation; and I verily think the Government and the House ought to give the public every assistance in their power for the purpose of securing that that generosity shall not be wasted, and that their efforts shall not be permitted to be fruitless. If that promise on my part at all contents the hon. Gentleman who has raised this question, I should certainly feel grateful in the interests of the business of the House that we should conclude the discussion of this particular subject as soon as possible. There are many important and interesting matters on the Paper on which a certain number of Members desire to speak, and I think, perhaps, it might be considered that this subject has been sufficiently debated.
  MR. LOUGH: Would the right hon. Gentleman say more definitely what is the promise he makes, because I would be

  971
  glad as far as I am concerned to assist in bringing the debate to an end if the promise is definite and satisfactory.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The promise I make is that the Government, or those who represent us, will do their best to consider with those who are responsible for the new funds and the old funds some method of general organisation by which those funds may be turned to the best advantage.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will the Government give those who have some knowledge of these funds an opportunity of expressing their views? You would receive a plausible answer from the Patriotic Commissioners, I have no doubt, but I am afraid no ultimate good would ensue.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall endeavour, of course, to see that those who have knowledge of, and have taken interest in, this question shall have an opportunity of expressing their views.
  MR. ALLAN: I will not occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments, but I desire to impress upon the First Lord of the Treasury that this is a matter he ought to take up. The real fact of the matter is that the Patriotic Commissioners are antiquated and altogether out of touch with the real and ostensible object of the provision of the money. There is no mistake about that when one remembers that this war has really been paid for by the wives and children of our soldiers. Men who were earning 25s. a week have gone to the front, and their wives are only getting now 10s., so that they are practically paying for the war. The First Lord of the Treasury ought to take the matter in hand in a strong and forcible manner, and clear out the whole of the Commissioners. They are absolutely granting pensions to the relatives of their own secretaries, and the Secretary of the job is now in South Africa receiving his pay, and at the same time drawing his salary from the Patriotic Commission. That is not right, and I hope the First Lord will deal with the matter in a businesslike manner as a Scotsman would do, and settle the job properly.
  MR. LOUGH: I will not detain the House, but I want to address one more
  972
  question to the First Lord, and if he makes a satisfactory reply I shall be glad if my hon. friend will withdraw the Amendment. This debate has been much too technical. The First Lord of the Treasury has, if I may say so without presumption, anticipated a great deal of what I was going to say. I will not go into the whole subject; I will only refer to the widows and orphans who will arise from the present unfortunate military proceedings. That is really the substance of the Amendment. We did not have a very satisfactory reply from the hon. Gentleman who replied in the first instance, but if I understand the First Lord carrectly, I think he has met my hon. friend nearly as far as could be expected. But there was one point in the right hon. Gentleman's statement to which I must refer. He stated that the Government would take this matter in hand, and consider what provision it was proper to make for the widows and orphans; and then he added that they would discuss the matter in conjunction with specialists, or words to that effect. We fear that that means the Patriotic Commissioners. We have faith in the Government in the matter, but we have no-faith in the Patriotic Commissioners. Perhaps I am not judging the right hon. Gentleman fairly. If he would go to the length of saying that the Government would consider the large and grave question to which he has rightly attached importance—that is, the grave question of the widows and orphans created by this war—and that when they have considered it they will make some statement, which I feel sure would be satisfactory to the House and to the country, I think the Amendment might be withdrawn.
  MR. YOXALL: May I ask whether the reference to this Departmental Committee, or to whatever authority the matter is referred, will consist merely or mainly of the provision for widows and orphans by private benevolence, or whether the right hon. Gentleman will undertake also that the question of making provision for the widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors out of State funds shall be fully considered. We ought not to depend upon eleemosynary efforts for the performance of this public duty, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will add that

  973
  subject to the reference to the proposed Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The motion on the Paper relates simply to the Patriotic Fund, and I have already gone beyond that. The hon. Gentleman wants to press me still further, but the matter to which he refers is really not relevant to this motion. Any inquiry we may make will be on the responsibility of the Government, and we shall get every assistance we can, not merely from the present trustees of the Patriotic Fund, but also from those who by their connection with the newer fund may be said to be thoroughly in touch with the country on the subject.
  MR. KEARLEY: After the very generous promise of the First Lord of the Treasury I would desire to withdraw this Amendment. What I understand the right hon. Gentleman to undertake to do is this—that the Government will take immediate action to ensure that the accumulations of the various funds in the hands of the Patriotic Commissioners shall be applied to the benefit of widows and orphans—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman must not press me further.
  MR. KEARLEY: I think I must accept the promise as made, and, with the permission of the House, withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  HIGHLAND CROFTING COUNTIES.
  MR. WEIR, in moving the Amendment he had placed on the paper, said that, in spite of the strong expression of opinion in the Report of the Napier Commission against the diminution for the purpose of afforestment of arable or pasture area, according to two Parliamentary Returns—one in 1891 and the other in 1898—fourteen new deer forests had been created between 1883 and 1891, while between 1891 and 1898 the number had been increased by twenty-one, giving a total since 1883 of thirty-five new forests. While not desiring to interfere with pleasure or sport, he contended it was
  974
  more important that the glens in the Highlands which were suitable should be used for supporting human beings than for herding deer. Instead of thousands of men being easily procured in a time of conflict such as the present, the glens were desolated and clear of human beings. From 1851 to 1891 the population of Argyllshire had decreased by 20,879, while the decrease in Inverness-shire during the same period was 10,055. The poor rate instead of going down had gone up. In 1852 it was £46,565, but in forty years it had more than doubled, the figures for 1892 being £94,697. It was highly important that this state of things should be investigated. A great deal was heard about going to other lands to redress grievances of so-called Uitlanders, but why were not the grievances of the people at home regarded instead of being ignored, especially in the face of the reports of Commissioners appointed to inquire into these very matters? Two Royal Commissions had stated that these lands in the Highlands were suitable for cultivation and occupation by the people. Instead they were used simply for deer. This extension of deer forests should be arrested. The Crofters Act did arrest it to a certain extent by giving tenants at will fixity of tenure, rents fixed by a commission or land court, and compensation for improvements. The number of applications for fair rents up to 1898 was 19,756; rents had been reduced from £80,373 to £58,910, I while arrears of rent to the extent of £123,630 had been cancelled out of a total of £183,776. These figures show to what a vast extent robbery had been going on under the pernicious system which prevailed prior to the passing of the Crofters Act. Leaseholders have, however, remained in the same position as before the passing of the Crofters Act. He had appealed to the Government time after time to look into this question and give these leaseholders some consideration. The leases of these people were entered into when the prices of agricultural produce were high, with the result that the tenants were now unable to pay their rents, and were turned out of their homes. It was very hard that a person living on one side of the road should have the benefits of the Act, while another person on the opposite side of the road, simply because he had entered into a lease, should be debarred from those benefits. Moreover,

  975
  was it fair that soldiers who went to the front, at a time of crisis such as the present, should on their return find that their families had been turned out of their homes? He sincerely hoped the Lord Advocate would give an assurance that at least the question as regards the leaseholders would be dealt with. The second part of the Amendment referred to the Deer Forest report of 1895, which scheduled 1,782,785 acres suitable for cultivation and occupation, but now used as deer forests. In 1898, the deer forest area had risen to 2,287,297 acres since 1883, and this in face of the Report of the Napier Commission recommending so strongly that no extension of the deer forest area should take place. In the same time there had been an increase of 35 in the number of deer forests. The total area in the crofting counties was 8,412,687 acres, while the deer forest area was 2,287,297 acres, or 27 per cent. of the whole acreage of the five counties. The cultivated land in these counties amounts only to 481,735 acres, whilst there are 1,782,785 acres now under deer suitable for occupation by the people. The hon. Member proceeded to compare this with the state of affairs in England before the Civil War. At that time there were 700 private parks; in England they had now been reduced to 300. In England these lands had been used for the purposes of the people; whilst in Scotland the people were cleared out and the land used for the purpose of creating deer forests. In 1812 there were only 5 deer forests in the whole of Scotland; at the present time there were 136 in the five crofting counties alone. When Sir George Trevelyan brought in a Bill in 1895 to settle the people on some half million acres of the land scheduled by the Deer Forest Commissioners the present First Lord of the Treasury, then in Opposition, said it was not a generous Bill, and that he wanted to do a great deal more for the crofters. But since the right hon. Gentleman had been in office nothing had been done to give effect to that wish. It was, too, a great injustice that the land should be allowed to go out of cultivation. In the report of the county medical officer for the island of Lewis last year it was stated that sanitary progress was much hindered by the lack of encouragement given to fishermen who were able and willing to build better houses if a site and a modicum of land
  976
  could be obtained; while the Deer Forest Commissioners of 1895 were clearly of opinion that much might be done to effect an improvement in the existing state of matters as to holdings for fishermen. What had the Government done for the fishermen? He (the hon. Member) was not aware of a single house having been built since that report was issued. What had been done for the crofters by the Congested Districts Board? £62,000 had been unexpended of the money voted by Parliament, and only £1,451 had been spent in migrating the crofters and cottars, although the Act was mainly provided for the purpose of migrating people from congested districts to parts less occupied. The whole thing was a farce and a sham; it was simply trifling with the question. On national grounds it was of the utmost importance that the Highland people should be settled in the Highland glens. In a great war the effect of the present condition of things would be felt; it was felt now. The Highland regiments must be filled up, but they cannot be with Highlanders. Highlanders are a martial people. It was not necessary to refer to the many glorious victories won by Highlanders. Surely the Highland soldiers, when they returned from the war maimed and crippled for life, as many would return from this South African War, should be able to settle in their old homes for the rest of their days, and not be liable to be turned out by some grasping landlord. If the Lord Advocate is not prepared to deal with the whole question, surely he should have no difficulty in carrying a short Bill to give small crofter tenants, who in 1886 were leaseholders, the benefits of the Crofters Act.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that in view of the continued increase in the deer forest area in the Highland crofting counties, it is desirable, in order to prevent a still further depopulation of the Highlands, that the benefits of the Crofters Act, 1886, should be extended to all crofter tenants holding under lease at the time of the passing of the Act; and we regret to observe that there is no indication in Your Majesty's Speech that arrangements will be made for the settling of Highland crofters, cottars, and fishermen on some portion of the 1,782,785 acres of land which in March, 1895, Your Majesty's Commissioners scheduled as deer forests, grouse moors, etc., which might be cultivated to profit, or otherwise advantageously occupied by crofters or small tenants.'"—(Mr. Weir.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. HEDDERWICK: The matter introduced by my hon. friend is in my opinion of importance not only to the Highlands but to the State, and that is my reason for occupying the time of the House in seconding the Amendment. The Crofters Act of 1886 conferred very great benefits on those people in the Highlands who came within the limits of its operations. I have often in my own mind contrasted the condition of the crofter of to-day with the condition of the artisan in any one of our great towns. Unlike the workman in the town, the crofter breathes the fresh air of heaven; he lives in a better moral atmosphere; he is surrounded by the sweet influences of nature; he is not summoned to a monotonous labour by the clang of the factory bell. He is master of his own circumstances. He is not liable to be dismissed at the caprice of an employer, or in consequence of fluctuation of trade. Secure in his croft, he enjoys the fruits of his toil without fear of molestation. These are inestimable blessings. It is not surprising therefore that those of us who are familiar with the improved condition of the crofter under the Act should be anxious to see the same advantages extended to others who are equally deserving, but as yet without the pale. I confess I have no hope of obtaining in the present session, or indeed from this Government at all such an extension of the Act. To effect such a change a fresh effort of legislation would be required, and it is obvious from the programme which has been laid before us that this is not to be expected. Therefore I regard the first part of this Amendment as scarcely practical. At the same time I agree with my hon. friend in the advisability of the extension, The second part of the Amendment, however, is really and entirety practical, dealing as it does with the desirability of doing something to settle the crofters in the Highlands upon some portion of the millions of acres which were reported by the Commission of 1895 to be capable of cultivation by crofters. In that connection I may remind the Lord Advocate that the Commission which sat under Lord Napier in 1883 gave expression to a very strong opinion with reference to the deer forests then in
  978
  existence. The Commissioners went so far as to declare that any further extension of deer forests would be opposed to sound policy. What is meant by sound policy? What I understand to have been running in the minds of the Commissioners was that it would be infinitely better for Scotland if that portion of the land then scheduled as deer forests, but suitable for cultivation by crofters, could be brought into cultivation. Such a course would benefit the country in several respects. In the first place, increased cultivation of the land must necessarily give increased employment to many people; and, in the second place, that increased employment must of necessity do something to arrest the depopulation that has been going on for generations and is still taking place in the Highlands. The evidence of those most fitted to judge is that the young men who are leaving the country are of the best class—that is, those of most spirit and enterprise. Last September, when this country was first menaced by the shadow of war, a detachment of one of the Highland regiments marched through part of the Highlands to beat up recruits. I encountered the detachment towards the end of its march, and, on making inquiries as to its success, I found that they had been able to enlist only one young man, the parents of whom the next day came and begged him off. Take another illustration of even more recent occurrence. There was a proposal lately to send a contingent of about 150 gillies to South Africa. It was supposed that a corps of deerstalkers might render valuable assistance to our troops.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Was that Lord Lovat's scheme?
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I believe it was. Well, Sir A. Orde, who was interested in the movement, went to Glasgow, and in a speech there told his audience that after going over his own extensive estates he could find only some six or seven young men; all the rest of the males on his property were old men or boys; and therefore he had to go to Glasgow to enlist men for this so called Highland contingent. This is a lamentable state of things. Contrast this state of affairs with the fact that early in this century, when we were at war in the Peninsula, the island of Skye alone

  979
  furnished some thousands of men to the British Army. Consider for one moment how invaluable it would be to us to-day if instead of going to the purlieus of our great cities to find a few remnants of the descendants of Highlanders, we could furnish from the Highlands, as was formerly the case, thousands of men of the very finest quality. Surely anything which would tend to revive the people would be a signal benefit to the State. But in spite of the warning given by Lord Napier's Commission in 1883, what has taken place? Have any of the deer forests been redeemed? On the contrary, afforestation has gone on increasing. This cannot continue for ever without having a very disastrous effect upon the country. The situation is serious. I do not profess to be at all fanatical on the subject; I am perfectly well aware there are great economic laws always in operation. There is the attraction or the drag of the great towns. There is that which is common to all youth everywhere—the dream which paints the fields that are far off as infinitely more fertile than the fields nearer home. These things one grants; they must operate in the ordinary course of human nature everywhere. But beyond and in addition to all these things, legislation and administration may or may not be contributing causes towards the depopulation of a country or district. What has the Legislature done? It has to some extent realised and attempted to meet the evil of which I complain. In 1897, under pressure, the Government passed the Congested Districts Relief Act, the main object of which was the purchase of land and the extension of existing holdings. It was, it is true, an absurdly inadequate sum which the Government granted, but small as it was there was in it some potentiality, if behind it there had been a mind willing to effect the purpose in view. But what has been done? Has the Government done anything? As far as I can gather there has not been one penny spent on the main object for which the money was granted. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate told me in reply to a question on Monday that there was in hand a balance of some £62,000, and that £1,451 had been expended on migration. But migration is not the acquisition of land or the extension of holdings. Therefore I am not exaggerating when I say
  980
  there has not been a single penny spent on the main object of the Act. But the Lord Advocate told me, and I thank him for it, a good deal that I did not ask for. He informed me that there were promises made under recommendations of certain committees with regard to agriculture and public works which would or might involve the Board in an expenditure of something like £27,000; and that negotiations were pending for the purchase of one or two properties which, if concluded, would involve a further expenditure of about £18,000. Then, no doubt feeling that after all it was a very lame account which the Government had to give with regard to the utilisation of the fund, the Lord Advocate added to his reply a little homily. He told me it was much better to proceed with caution rather than by precipitate action to do anything which might operate against economic laws and thereby defeat the main object of the Act. That Act was passed in 1897—nearly three years ago—and yet the Lord Advocate speaks of precipitate action. Nobody doubts the caution of the Lord Advocate, but caution may become a mania. If in three years the Board have not had sufficient time in which to discover some portion of land—although two million acres were marked out in 1895—on which to place some of these crofters in the congested districts without disturbing any of these great economic laws, then in my opinion caution is a veil for another and less admirable quality. I want some definite assurance from the Lord Advocate as to whether the negotiations of which he speaks are at all within reach of a conclusion, and whether we are likely, within the ordinary term of the life of the Government, to see anything done. I am not quite sure for what purpose the money is being heaped up. I am not quite sure that some purpose not within the limits of the Congested Districts Act may not be brooding in the minds of members of the Board, and I think we are entitled to an assurance that the money, which was granted for the specific purpose of relieving the crofter population of the north, by the acquisition of land, shall be devoted, without undue delay, to some substantial extent at any rate, to that purpose.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I desire to congratulate my

  981
  hon. friend the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty for taking the only opportunity that may occur during this session of enforcing the bitter complaint of the Highlands at the neglect they have suffered from this House and the Government during the past fourteen years. Previous to 1886 the condition of the crofters was a good deal worse than at present. Since the passing of the Crofters Act in 1886, which really prevented an agrarian revolt in the country, there has been a considerable improvement in affairs; but that Act was an experimental Act, and innumerable small grievances, which might have been remedied, were passed over. If these grievances had been dealt with by amending Acts, which had been proposed by the Highland Members, a good deal of harmony and confidence would have been restored to the north. I refer specially to the grievance that the leaseholders were not included in the benefits of the principal Act. Now, these leaseholders are men of more enterprise, thrift, and foresight than the majority of their neighbours. In fact, it was in order to secure some return for the improvements which they had made on their crofts that they entered into the leases, by which they lost benefits which were conferred on the crofters who held their land only from year to year. I think it is a shame that the best men in the Highlands should have been penalised in that way. Their case has been brought forward in this House again and again, and I think, it is desirable that the Members for the crofter constituencies should enter their protest at the unfeeling disregard of their demands by the Conservative Government. Some Amendments to the Act of 1886 have been passed, and the relief of the leaseholders might have been included in them, but it was refused. I do not enter into the question of the deer forests, because in the county I happen to represent there is not a single deer, and a very small amount of game. But there are numbers of crofters in the southern counties, who desire to possess land, but cannot get it, although, a very large amount of land capable of being divided into crofts was scheduled in the Report of the Deer Forest Commission of 1892. It has been said that the Highland grievances can be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board; but our complaint is that that Board does the things we don't desire, and refuses to do the things we
  982
  desire, and I am sorry to say that the hopes raised by the appointment of the Congested Districts Board have been falsified, and we are actually in a worse condition than before it was instituted. And for this reason: we have not the same facility to obtain redress of our grievances. Instead of appealing to the House, we must appeal to the Board, which may be partly in Dover House and partly in Edinburgh, and we cannot ferret the members out. It is said that a considerable sum of money has been placed at the disposal of the Board; but, the money being in the hands of the Board, when land is wanted owners immediately raise the price of land. I know that negotiations have been entered into with the Board to obtain possession of the land, but they failed on that account. If the money had been placed in the hands of an independent man, the land could have been bought for a reasonable sum. I shall on another occasion have a better opportunity of dealing with the Congested Districts Board; but in regard to this particular Amendment, which deals with the grievances of which we have to complain, we want to have some responsible person in this House who will be able to deal adequately with the questions which are now referred to the Board, so that we may be able to bring him to book when a remedy is not applied. The fault of the Board is that the members, although they are adequately paid, have no particular business to do. There is, therefore a divided responsibility, and no special obligation to do the work well.
  MR. GORDON: I wish to say a few words on the question raised by previous speakers, but I do not promise to vote for the Amendment, as I have no desire to turn the Government out of office. I know of no Government which has done more for the good of the Highlands than the present Government. All I ask is that the attitude of my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate will be as sympathetic as possible, and that he will be able to indicate in his reply what the Government are going to do. The difficulty is in the economic condition of the Highlands, and many men of goodwill have been unable to suggest proper remedies. An appeal to a Government office is always a third-class mode of procedure. I have paid attention to the speeches made on the other

  983
  side, and have failed to gain any idea of how these hon. Gentlemen, opposite would themselves proceed to improve the condition of the Highland population. I know that Railway legislation has been hindered, hampered, and delayed by the action of certain Members on the other side of the House. The economic question of dealing with a rural population living at a high altitude in a severe climate is by no means confined to the North of Scotland. The rural population of Scotland is decreasing, but not necessarily by harsh and cruel methods. There are districts near London where the rural population is diminishing, but that is because the men are intelligent enough not to go on working for 10s. per week when they can get more in the towns. I myself have always divided the Highland population into, two classes—first, that class which from an over conservative sense of local patriotism and a natural instinct desire to stay where their forefathers lived and died. I think that portion of the population is well worthy of the attention of the House. The question of deer-forests is a very serious one. No doubt deer forests bring capital into poor districts, and improve conditions and methods of living, but at the same time I think that to allow the further unlimited afforesting of large districts in the North of Scotland is quite as worthy of the attention of this House as the carrying of a railway or canal, which may affect the condition of the population adversely throughout extensive areas. I would say that before allowing landed proprietors to afforest their lands it would not be unreasonable to ask them to come before the House by a private Bill seeking the permission of Parliament. The other class of the rural community are far too acute and clever, in these days of travel and inter-communication, to remain where their forefathers lived. They go out into the world to subdue the wilderness in our colonies, or, with the energy and strength to command, to leading, armies to victory, or to building great railways, returning Peers of the Realm. One of these sons of the Highlands the other day offered to the Secretary, of State for War a regiment of cavalry, fully, equipped, at his own expense. The question is how to protect that portion of the community, which desires to remain at home, without going against the progress of the age. In my own constituency, which is not under the
  984
  Crofters Act, there are a large number of men who would be called under the English law squatters, who have made improvements on the land they occupy. Under the old families these men are practically safe, but when a property changes hands and a new owner comes in, who has none of the feudal instincts regarding his tenants' rights, or no sense of noblesse oblige, he may seek to appropriate the improvements which morally belong to the crofter. I hope that in the proposed legislation on agricultural improvement foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, the Government will throw their ægis over these tenants, and secure for them the value which they have really created on a bare soil, so that they may not depend for their security on feudal law or custom, but on the law of Parliament. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to the Ferrintosh case, and left, unwittingly, I have no doubt, a wrong impression on the House. That is an estate belonging to the family of Forbes, whose name is of historic interest, for, without the efforts of Lord President Forbes, during the rebellion of 1745, the House of Hanover would probably not now have been on the throne. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty referred to the condition of the crofters on that estate, but their condition is better than that of the landlord, for Culloden House has recently been dismantled, and no member of the family is able to remain in this country for want of financial means. I believe that the true remedy for the position of land tenants in Scotland, not only small but also larger, is to be found in the Government's recent legislation in Ireland for Land Purchase; and I regret most sincerely that when some similar offer was made by the Duke of Sutherland in regard to his crofting holdings, it was coldly received by the advisers of the crofters. I believe that a judicious proposal by the Government, if not in this session, in the near future, forwards carrying out a scheme of bona fide land purchase would be the best solution of the land question in Scotland. The only other matter I desire to bring, before the House is that the Government should, in connection with a scheme of land purchase in Scotland, also borrow from Ireland the policy of the Irish Labourers' Cottage Act, and consider whether it is adaptable to Scotland. To all these

  985
  experimental methods, if carried out by the Congested Districts Board, I would give my hearty support, for I believe that if carried out prudently and wisely, it would be the best method of meeting the difficulties now before the House.
  MR. MCLEOD: I congratulate my hon. friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn on the manner in which he has discussed this subject, but I challenge his statement that the present Government, of all Governments, has done most to benefit the crofters of the Highlands. If my hon. friend had been in the House longer he would have known that the Crofters Act of 1886, which transferred property amounting to millions that previously to that Act belonged to the landlords, to the crofters, was passed by a Liberal Government. I think that that measure will bear comparison with anything done by the present Government. The hon. Member said that there had not been a single practical suggestion made this evening on this side of the House for the benefit of the Highlands, but I think that a practical suggestion is indicated in the first part of this Amendment, which states that "the benefits of the Crofters Act of 1886 shall be extended to all crofter tenants holding under lease at the time of the passing of that Act." I have no doubt we shall presently hear from the Lord Advocate something of the sacredness of contract, and that it would be going against all the traditions of Tory Governments that they should interfere with written contracts. I would point out that the case of the small leaseholders in the Highlands and islands is exceptional. It is exceptional in this respect, that these small leaseholders are the descendants of men who occupied the same position as the men who obtained the benefits of the Crofters Act. In most instances they were turned into leaseholders against their will. They had carried out improvements on their crofts at their own expense, and could get no compensation from the landlords. It was the men who carried out the most valuable improvements that entered into the leases, because they imagined that in that way they would get security for these improvements. In my own constituency there are few small leaseholders, but in the case of these few the hardship is all the greater. As showing how accidental
  986
  was the operation of the Crofters Act, in so far as admitting some crofters to the benefit of that Act and excluding others, you find side by side a large community enjoying the benefits of that Act and a small community excluded from them, simply because, in the case of the former, their leases had expired. Then there is the case of Lord Lovat's crofters. The factor on that estate, foreseeing that the Crofters Act would pass, compelled the crofters to accept leases; but when the subject was brought before the Crofters Commission, they stated that these contracts were not contracts at all. There is the case of the crofters on the Ferrintosh estate, nominally owned by a very historical family. On that estate absolutely all the improvements were executed by and at the expense of the small tenants. I do not know whether the House is aware of the fact, but the Culloden family obtained the right of making as much whisky on their estate, duty free, as they could, in return for the services rendered by President Forbes during the Rebellion of 1745–6. The consequence was that a great many people settled on the Culloden property for the purpose of growing-barley, and that rents went up high. Holdings which originally were only let for 2s. 6d. were raised to £16. There was one case of a small leaseholder, who proved that he was only in a position to pay £8 instead of £16 during the last few years. Now, if that man's lease had happened to expire just before the Crofters Act was passed, he would have got the benefit of that Act, and have been required only to pay £8. It is nothing short of legalised robbery that that man should pay a rent of £16 when his holding is only worth £8. In my own constituency there is a small estate of the name of Herniss which is unfortunately in the hands of a trustee; and it is impossible for him to give relief to the tenants according to the law. This is not a party matter at all. The representatives of the Tory party have tried to do all they can to relieve these poor people, who in the end, however, are turned out of their holdings. There is not a single argument that can be used in favour of preventing these small leaseholding tenants getting the benefit of the Act, the same as was given to the leaseholders in Ireland, except that they do not happen to be the political force which the leaseholders were in Ire-

  987
  land. We are all aware that the Conservatives do not hesitate to break leases of large as well as small tenants, when it suits their purpose, and when we ask for this in the case of the crofters in the Highlands and Islands we are only asking what is fair and just. My hon. friend the Member for Wick Burghs made it appear as if it was rather a difficult thing to ask the Government to pass legislation this session, on account of other matters engaging the attention of the House: but I can assure the Lord Advocate that it only means a one-clause Bill, and that he will not get any opposition from this side of the House. In regard to the second portion of the Amendment, perhaps the House will bear with me if I say a few words in regard to it. I had the honour to serve on the Royal Commission which made the report to the House that there was an area of £1,782,785 acres of land available for advantageous occupation by crofters and other small tenants. Now, in regard to Royal Commissions, it is generally the practice to quote their Report even when it is only signed by a majority. A strong point in regard to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1895 is that we were absolutely unanimous in our recommendation so far as the area available was concerned, and that it could be advantageously occupied by crofters and small tenants. The only difference was how the people could be settled on the land. I signed the minority Report that the land should be bought, but the view of the majority was that that was not a question for the Commission at all to decide, but for the Government. Since that Report was made there was an attempt on the part of the late Government not only to make it easier for the small tenants who had got the benefits of the Act of 1886 to acquire more land, but to extend its benefits to other counties than what were in the original Act called the "crofting counties," and to put in operation a scheme for the compulsory acquisition of land. That failed, but it is very significant that when that Bill was before the House not a word came from the First Lord of the Treasury or the Lord Advocate against the scheme, or the necessity for drastic legislation. Their whole complaint was that Sir George Trevelyan had not gone far enough. It is an amusing commentary on the value the Scottish Office
  988
  attaches to its own representations that it was suggested that the small portion of money granted to the Congested Districts Board for land purchase should be applied to education, as they could not find the means of spending it. Now, when the Bill passed, everyone knew that the money provided for the Board was utterly inadequate if the purchase of land was to be resorted to. In the old days it was said that the Highland people did not want the land, but the whole and sole reason why the Congested Districts Board has not been overwhelmed with applications, is that they have no compulsory powers of acquisition. In my own constituency the Board were in treaty for an estate, but the condition of sale by the proprietor was that the prospective tenants were to take over the sheep stock, which they said was absolutely useless for their purposes. Where you have a well-meaning landlord like Sir Arthur Ford of North Uig, difficulties are put in his way by the Congested Districts Board. That gentleman was willing to take a certain number of tenants from the congested districts and put them on a portion of his land, but the Board would not consent unless he put the whole of these tenants under the Crofters Commission, so as to give them the legal status of crofters. My hon. friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn complained that no scheme for the amelioration of the Highlands was forthcoming from this side of the House. I do not know whether he ever did the members of the Highland Land League the honour of reading any of their speeches; but we have for years pointed out a manner of dealing with this question—namely, that the Crofters Commission, which has done its duty in such a way as to command the admiration and confidence of all parties in Scotland, should have its powers enlarged, and the scope of its operations extended. That brings me to the point in regard to the remark of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn as to the offer by a proprietor in my own constituency, the Duke of Sutherland, to his small tenants that they should purchase their holdings, and that they had refused to accept that offer under advice. But the hon. Member should remember that the holdings offered for sale were only rented at 25s. per annum, and therefore of a size impossible for a man to make a living out of. In

  989
  regard to the remedies, I do not think that if any Government is only strong enough to face the situation there can be much difficulty in providing them. It is to be remembered that the case of the Highlands is entirely exceptional, and indeed that was the excuse already made for very special legislation. From the manner in which the Highland people became dispossessed of their land, any Government—even a Conservative Government—is fully justified in saying to the present proprietors in the Highlands and Islands, "You must be prepared to deal with these exceptional circumstances, and, according to the remedy suggested by the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, no Highland proprietor in future shall be allowed to add to the area of deer forests without getting a private Bill authorising it." The other remedy is an extremely simple matter: extend the powers of the Crofters Commission. In regard to this matter of the deer forests, I am quite certain that neither the House nor the country has the slightest conception of the enormous area that has been constantly added to them in the Highlands. The matter has not received the amount of attention it should have, because a good number of the people who speak on the subject speak too loosely, with the result that their opponents have no difficulty in showing that in some respects they are wrong. Now, it is an undoubted fact that formerly a large population was cleared out from the Highlands, and their houses burned down. I owe my presence in this House to the fact that I am the son of a man whose dwelling was so burned down after he had been turned out of it. The whole population of Sutherlandshire, with the exception of that of one little strath—every living soul—was turned out of their homes and driven down to the seaside. These, be it remembered, were the parents of the men who, at that time, were fighting the battles of England on the Continent, men who had been induced to enlist on the assurance that they would be not only doing a duty to their country and their parents, but that they would be able to come home and find a place in which to spend the remainder of their days. But when the survivors returned they found, instead of a home, charred ruins. What is the result? In the most populous parish of Sutherlandshire, where the people are relatively well off,
  990
  where there is the largest Volunteer company in the county, and where there is all the material for a splendid contingent—not a single man volunteered to go to the front in South Africa. And why? They say, "See what happened under a British Parliament and under a British Government to our fathers; and unless you put that right we won't go to fight your battles abroad, although we are prepared, as Volunteers, to defend our homes." Take the case of the Inverness Militia, which was lately taken up to Aldershot under the command of The Macintosh. I have seen these men myself; they were not like Militia, but like troops who had seen service abroad; big stalwart men, well set-up, and finely drilled. When called up, out of over a thousand only fourteen were found unfit for duty. Well, it was put to them whether they would not like to go to South Africa, and they good-humouredly said they would consider it if they got a promise of a farm or a share in a gold mine; but they added they were not going abroad to fight for a shilling a day after the way their forefathers were used. The feeling is there deep and determined, and that is the result of the Highland clearances. As I have said, very few are aware of how enormously the area of the deer forests in the Highlands has increased of late years. In 1883 the figures were sufficiently startling; the area then under deer forests was 1,711,082 acres, whereas in 1898 it had increased to 2,287,297 acres, or an increase of half a million acres in sixteen years. I have been led away by this digression from the point I was illustrating. When the people were cleared off the land for the purpose of putting on sheep, the proprietors did not pay the crofters and small tenants for the improvements which they appropriated, although it was these improvements which produced the grass that made sheep-farming then profitable. In the passing I of this little measure of justice I think we can almost claim it by the inherent righteousness of the case. At the same time there is no reason in the world why a clause should not be introduced in the interests of these poor people, and with regard to the utilisation of this large area of land, which is practically wasted in the Highlands, I do not see why that also should not be amended It is a perfectly good scheme, If this House only realises

  991
  in a very small degree what the condition of these poor people in the Highlands of Scotland is, I am sure they would not be slow to pass this measure of relief. In my own constituency, which is a rural constituency, I can tell you that the supply of milk for the children is so short that the medical officer has been constantly referring to it in his annual reports to the county council. The area of land is so small that the crofters are not able to keep a sufficient number of cows in one place. They are decent people, who are law-abiding and who pay their rent and taxes; and when this House by its enactments gives relief to the big farmer, but none to the small tenant, it is but natural that a protest should be raised. I do not know a more industrious section of the community than the poor Highlanders. Since the passing of the Crofters Act it is almost incredible to believe what these people have done. One of the greatest agitations that Scotland has ever witnessed was that which broke out in Skye in 1896 after the passing of the Act. It was felt that the crofters were doing something to better their condition, to build new houses to which they might resort in the summer time. There is no desire to keep the Highlander there against his will. In my own constituency, in the best of parishes, emigration is so great among the young people that it is almost impossible to get assistance in the shape of a lad where the small tenant is not able to do the work himself. On the other hand, in the poorest parish there is no emigration at all; they do not breed; and if occasionally one or two of them do go away, they almost always come back. In the better-off parishes the parents are generally able to keep the children at school, and, when they come of age, to give them a decent outfit and a fair start in life. They do fairly well. Well, Sir, that is the class of people whom I would like to see settled. If it be true that there is no great demand for new holdings it makes it all the easier for the Tory party to deal with the question. I can assure the House that there is no more deserving people, no people that will better appreciate legislation in their behalf than these people in the Highlands.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The first portion of this Amendment deals with a
  992
  now familiar question, as I think the House will remember that this question was really fully argued last year. On that occasion I gave the view of the Government on the matter, and before the present debate I had refreshed my memory on the subject. I do not mean to go into the question at any great length; but I do wish to say this, that I entirely demur to that description of the leaseholder—assumed rather than stated—in the speeches which have been delivered as that of "a cautious crofter." A good many years ago it is said he was cautious, and now, in the efflux of time we find him in a very much worse condition than the crofter. There are some persons in that position. But the effect of extending the Crofters Act to all leaseholders under £30 would be to include an enormous number of people not in that position, and who, I have again and again explained, were not in the view of the Government to be brought in under a land court system. The Crofters Act introduced a land court for a peculiar people who had an historical reason for being allowed a privilege which no one else was allowed, because, although they had a tenure which by law was precarious, in practice it had always been looked upon as non-precarious, and the law did no more than make legal a tenure which had been practically customary, and this could not apply to those under voluntary contracts. It will be a sad day for Scotland if a land court were introduced between landlord and tenant. In dealing with the second portion of the Amendment in relation to deer forests, the mover passed with a rapid and somewhat confused touch from the early history of the subject to the present time, and did not differentiate in his epithets, which, however appropriate at one time, are so no longer. The "cruel evictions" referred to are things of the past; and, in fact, such increase as there has been in afforestation in recent times has been by the conversion of sheep pastures into deer forests, because in certain places deer pay better than sheep. Another hon. Member has dwelt upon the depopulation which, he said, is still proceeding in the Highlands. But the economic causes that make for depopulation of rural districts are common to the whole kingdom; and if the more intellectual and enterprising young Highlanders seek their fortunes far afield it is

  993
  not a matter for complaint, and, indeed, it is a Scotchman's boast that his successful countrymen can be found in every part of the world. Reference has also been made to the poor success of a recruiting party, and mention has been made of the fact that from a body of the Inverness Militia not one would volunteer for service in South Africa. I am sorry for it; but throughout Scotland there is no lack of the patriotic fervour that exists in all parts of the kingdom. I do not speculate as to the reasons influencing the Inverness men, confining myself to the hope and belief that they were personal and good reasons. One thing I am sure of, that is that their conduct was not due to any slight or injustice from the Government long ago. So far as deer forests are concerned, the case failed, because the Commission did not find a large extent of forest land available for crofting, though they did refer to land that could be advantageously occupied by persons suitably chosen, able and willing to stock and cultivate. It was when the land was found that the difficulties began, and the attitude of the Government was shown in the experiments being made by the Congested Districts Board. For the general policy of that Board my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland accepts entire responsibility. A wrong idea has been conveyed by the statement that my noble friend proposes to devote a certain portion of the funds of the Board to education. Advice from those best qualified to give it shows that young Highland people are at a disadvantage when going out into the world from ignorance of the advanced forms of social life and matters of common knowledge to ordinary boys and girls. They do not know really the ordinary operations of building, carpentry, the proper conduct of a dairy, and so on. Thus, when they left their native place to go into service, they are only able to take the lowest place in the scale of labour. Unfortunately, as a lawyer, I had to advise my noble friend that the clauses of the Congested Districts Acts did not cover, that class of expenditure, and accordingly my noble friend, approached the hon. Member, for Sutherland and several other hon. Members, who may be termed representative in this matter to see whether he could not get through the House by consent a Bill to enable him to do so.
  MR. MCLEOD: The matter was not a subject of complaint, but it showed simply that the Scotch Office relied upon the Congested Districts Board, which was no remedy.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Surely it is a most curious deduction to make that if you have five ways of doing good and you see a sixth way that is a confession of failure in regard to the other five. Although I did get much individual assistance from certain hon. Members, they could not come to that absolute unanimity as to letting the Bill go through, which was the only condition of success, and accordingly the Bill did not pass. There are many forms of benefitting the people other than by the creation of new holdings. Passing over those forms and systems which are quite as important as any other forms, that does not alter the fact that the Congested Districts Board are anxious to try what can be done in that matter. I will answer the questions put to me by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. I can assure him that we are not intentionally heaping up the money. We have no ulterior object, and we are only heaping up money because we do not wish to spend it until we can spend it favourably. The real difficulty is not getting the land, but getting suitable tenants, and I should like to read to the House one or two conditions imposed by the Congested Districts Board, to show how extremely liberal their views are if a tenant of the proper kind will come forward. The price of the holding was to be an average of £650. The proposal of the Congested Districts Board is that they are willing to lend that money, and allow it to be paid back at 2¾ per cent., spread over fifty years. They would also arrange for the shooting to be paid for, the benefit of the shooting rent to go to the crofter. The way it would work out would be that the crofter would have to pay £23 18s. 11d. yearly for fifty years, when the loan would be repaid. He would get £12 19s. for the shooting rent, and, therefore, the holding would cost him £10 19s. 11d. per year. Now I ask hon. Members, is that not a perfectly handsome offer, and is it not a good chance for a man able to better himself that by paying £10 19s. 11d. a year for fifty years he becomes the proprietor of the holding? If the crofter Consented to erect upon his holding the

  995
  proper buildings, the Congested Districts Board offer to lend him £300 towards the buildings, and lend it him upon the same terms as those upon which his holding has been acquired. The difference between our views and those which I rather suspect are held by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment is that we are determined, although we are liberal, we are not going to disregard economic conditions in toto. If you do not insist upon it that the men coming forward shall be men of character and experience, and men who at least have a sufficiency of stock or the means of getting them, then so far from helping the solution of the problem of the crofters in the congested districts you will be doing your very best to make the last state of the Highlands worse than the first.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I am bound to say that certain: new facts have been brought to light in regard to this problem during the past year which I should have thought would have brought home conviction to my right hon. friend. It is impossible to deny that the state of matters in the Highlands is a state of peace, but of peace which must be followed, unless a change of policy ensues, by a state, I will not say of clamour, but of unrest which may have very serious consequences. Each year that passes over our heads sees us possessed of a smaller and smaller area of land for ordinary economic purposes. This is a serious fact. During the past twelve or fifteen years afforestation has been in a progressive state. Of the entire area of the Kingdom of Scotland, not less than 12 per cent. is now under deer and devoted to the purposes of sport alone. The House will see that this is at least a social problem which may not be without trouble in the future. It is impossible in a country like ours that a Crofters Act can pass without having its consequences, and I think the time has come when the House is able to fully recognise, in view of our past experience, that some extension of that measure is necessary. The Commission which was appointed in 1892 to inquire into a kindred subject gave us clearly to understand how beneficial had been the operation of that Act. The Act is one of which the Government who passed it may justly be proud. In regard to the relation of the crofter and the crofter population to
  996
  the landlords, the situation had for long been one of chronic debt on the one hand, and chronic pursuit for debt on the other. The result of the Statute economically has been that about 27 per cent. of the entire rental of the crofting area has disappeared, and with regard to the arrears 70 per cent. has been completely wiped out. I venture to say that a policy that has been followed by such peace and contentment in the relations between landlord and tenant, after the passing of that measure, is a result which the authors of that Act can look back upon with much satisfaction. It is not only with regard to the relations between the crofters and their landlords that the Act has been beneficial. The House may remember that in 1892 there was laid on the Table of this House a report from the Deer Forests Commission. The personnel of that Commission was largely identical with the personnel of the Crofters Commission itself. They took that occasion to make certain remarks as to the alterations during the period succeeding the passing of the Crofters Act, and their verdict has been, with regard to the land possessed by the crofters, that such land is now better tilled, better drained, and better fenced than it ever was under the old system. An opinion like that, so manifestly favourable, is bound to have an effect upon the mind of the surrounding population. What has been the history of Ireland in this matter? You would never have had peace in Ireland upon this topic of land occupation unless you had been content to extend the benefit of such a statute to the leaseholder. I remember quoting a sentence from a speech made by Lord Salisbury, in which he brushed aside all those legal and technical subtleties founded on by the Lord Advocate, and said the leaseholder's position was that he held a longer tenure than the tenant at will, but that he was side by side with the tenant at will, and should, like him, have fixity of tenure and other rights. The result in Ireland has been eminently satisfactory, and why should the leaseholders of Scotland have the door slammed in their faces in this matter? I support my hon. friend who has moved this Amendment because I think it is a matter in which it is the duty of Scotch Members to iterate and reiterate, until the mind of the House becomes saturated with the necessity of this reform. On the other hand, the motion has reference to and a considerable

  997
  bearing upon the operations of the Congested Districts Board, and here I do not think my right hon. friend has done very much service to that Board by laying the whole blame or the whole glory for its operations at one single door, namely, the door of the Secretary for Scotland. Of course I am not going to repeat here what I urged as strongly as I could when the Bill creating that Board was before this House, namely, that unless you give powers for the compulsory acquiring of land you were setting that body into existence tied hand and foot, and so fatally impeded its progress. There are many ways in which the expenditure of money in the Highlands can be undertaken for the benefit of the population. We have the expenditure of money for communication by roads, light railways, and the like; we have the expenditure in the case of the present Government by grants in aid of the taxpayers in agricultural districts. We also have the expenditure of money for industrial purposes under the Congested Districts Board Act; but at the bottom of all that expenditure we ought to have the expenditure of money upon a scheme for enabling crofters, or that class of people, to have land upon reasonable terms, on which they can work out their own betterment in life, and pay their taxes like their neighbours. Unless you do that you are only building a superstructure without laying the foundation. So far as we can gather the result up to the present is that the Congested Districts Board, which has been in existence for two and a half years, has obtained grants from the Treasury to the extent of £70,000. What has it done with regard to assisting the acquirement of land by the crofting population? The whole figure on that head amounts only to about £1,400 to £1,500.
  MR. WEIR: £1,451.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: Therefore the result of all this is that of this £70,000, the main purpose of which was to bring the people of the proper class back to the land, more especially in the neighbourhood of existing holdings, only 2 per cent. has been expended. What I fear is that the Congested Districts Board lacked power to begin with, and it also lacks nerve and resolution. It is impossible to have listened to such a speech
  998
  as that delivered by my hon. friend the Member for Orkney without feeling that there is land in abundance in Scotland which could be acquired even without compulsory powers upon reasonable terms. The Treasury, however, has been substantially controlled by the Scotch Board, who will not bring the people back to the land. My right hon. friend made one I remark that I cannot say I listened to with very much satisfaction. He gave an instance of the rental arising from shooting and deer forests, and said the latter pays best. Yes, but whom does it pay? It may pay the landlord best, but does it pay the nation best? That other element is one which we may well consider at this moment, when our Highlanders are taking their share in battle for this country. There is another element besides the purely economic aspect of this question, and that is that you are gradually depleting the area of land on which you can grow a healthy and a hardy and a virile population. We know to-day what such people can do in times of war and in times of national trouble, and I want our legislation shaped upon lines and upon economic conditions, which will give the Highlands a chance of flourishing and of replenishing the British Empire in its strength.
  DR. CLARK: I am surprised that the Lord Advocate has taken the course which he has done to-night and opposed this Amendment. My hon. friend proposed as a compromise that if his very moderate demand were accepted he would give up the still more important portion, but the Lord Advocate does not even concede that which, time alter time, before the right hon. Gentleman was Lord Advocate, the leaders of both sides declared should be I given. When I listened to his speech to-night, I wished that the Lord Advocate knew really more of the facts of the case. He has told the House that this is a proposal made by those who wish to introduce Irish methods into Great Britain. Why, this proposal was first made fourteen years ago in this House; and by whom does he think? By a noble Lord who was the largest owner of land in Scotland—who owned more than a million acres. This proposal was first made in this House by the present Duke of Sutherland, who was then Marquess of Stafford—not by any crofter or an Irish-

  999
  man, but by a man who owns more land than any other living person. Both sides admit that the leaseholder was in the same position as the holder from year to year. The bulk of the leaseholders are simply crofters who, having made improvements, are desirous of getting security for them, and they required protection much more than any other class. When the Conservative Government came into power they brought in a Bill which at once destroyed over 150,000 leases. We have been told that the Highland tenants were not harshly but generously rented, but fourteen years experience of the Crofters Act has demonstrated that they were more rack-rented than the Irish tenants. So that, as far as the case of the crofters is concerned, it has been made out that it is based upon equity and justice. Of course, the Government now refuse what we ask. My hon. friend in introducing this motion gave some very startling statistics regarding the great decrease of the population in our Highland counties. The facts stated did not give the House the impression that otherwise they might have done. The case is very much worse, as I will explain. Take Argyllshire, for instance. The hon. Member says that during forty years there has been a reduction in the population of Argyllshire of 20,000, and that is perfectly true. But it must be remembered that five or six big towns have grown up in Argyllshire during that period. The decrease in the rural population in the Highlands has been about one-half. What is the economic condition now as shown by the last returns? I won't take Skye or Lewes, which we have had before, but I will take Mull, which I do not think has ever come before us. During the forty years from 1841 to 1881 the population of Mull was reduced from 10,000 to 5,000, or 50 per cent., and what is the picture we get in the last report? It says that there are fifteen farms in Mull with an annual value of over £4,000, and they are now all in the hands of the Duke of Argyll. He has got to keep those farms with their stock, and he has them on his hands. That shows the failure of the old system. If we had a really active Congested Districts Board they would give relief to the Duke and the other great landlords, and take them out of the unfortunate position in which they now find themselves. That
  1000
  congestion in the Highlands is causing the growth of pauperism, and you have all the best people leaving the districts. The Lord Advocate wonders why we object to this, but I cannot see his logic, for if your best people go away and your worst remain, the country must deteriorate either intellectually, morally, or physically. Surely, as a patriotic Scotsman, the right hon. Gentleman cannot desire that. That is the reason why we object to it. Is this the case in Norway and Switzerland? How do we stand in Scotland? Our case has been brought year after year, before the House, and our facts have been admitted by the First Lord of the Treasury himself. The principle has been admitted and a remedy suggested, because for many years emigration has been urged by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. That was tried, and large sums of money were voted by this Parliament, for the experiment. It is now admitted that the experiment was a dead failure, and the £20,000 which was voted might just as well have been pitched into the Thames. I have visited one of the settlements in Manitoba, and there was not a single soul left in the houses there. We ask for migration, and we say that there is plenty of land in Scotland. There was the Commission of 1890, and their Report demonstrated that there was plenty of land, and so that is not a mere statement made by us. They classified a scheme which showed that there was 794,000 acres capable of cultivation as new crofts. Half a million acres were recommended as farms of moderate size to give to the more enterprising people, and we did expect that the Congested Districts Board, after it was appointed, would have done something to carry out those recommendations. Two years ago the First Lord of the Treasury said we were in too big a hurry and expected results all at once. What has been the result of nearly three years experience? Why, that rather less than £1,500 has been spent in migrating the population. I admit that they are making arrangements to spend £18,000 more. The whole sum they have spent for every purpose has been about 10 per cent., and this £18,000 is only one half of the sum they will get this year, for they will receive £35,000. They still have £62,000 out of the £70,000 which was voted by this House two years ago. That is the con-

  1001
  dition of things we have got after nearly three years working of the Board. Having no compulsory powers, we knew from the beginning that they would not be able to do much, and all they have been able to do is to issue advertisements asking Highland landlords to sell their estates. But until you get compulsory powers you cannot get the land. We have been told that we do not suggest any remedy, but we have suggested remedies, and the House has practically admitted that our remedies are just and practical. Want of time during the session might make legislation impracticable, but there is no great question coming before the House which is likely to take up much time this session. There is no great party question
  being brought forward; the measures proposed are such that all sides might feel inclined to pass. This is a session when there is no great burning political question, and therefore important legislation of this kind might be passed. Now we are told that nothing will be done by this Government, and what is worse, the Government have gone back from the position formerly taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Cabinet by now opposing this matter on principle.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 186. (Division List No. 5.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Malley, William

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gibney, James

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Asher, Alexander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Parnell, John Howard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harrington, Timothy

  Pinkerton, John

  Blake, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Caldwell, James

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Holland, William Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Carew, James Laurence

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roche, John (East Galway)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Commins, Andrew

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd)

  Strachey, Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Daly, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Q'n's C.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Dewar, Arthur

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Wason, Eugene

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Engledew, Charles John

  M'Leod, John

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Woods, Samuel

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Murnaghan, George

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  NOES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

  Bethell, Commander

  Arnold, Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bill, Charles

  Arrol, Sir William

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.- (Hunts.)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, Laurence

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Penn, John

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Heath, James

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Helder, Augustus

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hart'pl)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kenyon, James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

  Curzon, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Henry

  Rutherford, John

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Knowles, Lees

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Dorington, Sir John Edwd.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Curry

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'nsea

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Finch, George H.

  Lorne, Marquess of

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Stock, James Henry

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Garlit, William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ.

  Gedge, Sydney

  M'Killop, James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

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

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  More, Robert Jasper (Shrops.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y)

  Morton, Arth. H.A. (Deptford)

  Wyndham, George

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mount, William George

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, Charles, J. (Coventry)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Myers, William Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Main question again proposed.

  TAXATION OF IRELAND.
  MR. CLANCY, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Question the words—"But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the over taxation of Ireland, which promises to become greatly aggravated by the expenditure on the war in South Africa, is a most
  1004
  serious and pressing grievance, and demands the early attention of Parliament with a view to its removal," said: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the Amendment which stands in my name has been before the House several times in recent years, but I make no apology and I offer no excuse for bringing it forward on the present occasion. The first reason why we think it necessary at this stage of the session to bring under the consideration

  1005
  of Parliament once more the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland is that all Ireland is practically united on this question. There was some doubt, I believe, as to one particular part of Ireland being in disagreement with the rest—I mean the city of Belfast. That stood apart in what Lord Salisbury would call "splendid isolation" on this question. I believe, however, that the hon. Member for South Belfast now occupies a sort of political Spion Kop, where he stands alone in resistance to the assaults of modern degeneracy.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: The four Members for Belfast are united on the question.
  MR. CLANCY: I refer to Belfast for this reason. A short time ago a deputation from the All Ireland Committee waited on the Corporation of Belfast, and, although the hon. Member for South Belfast represents the city on most questions, the Corporation agreed to take a stand with the rest of Ireland on this matter; and when I am told by the hon. Member that the four Members for the city have taken up the same position as he has I would remind him that one of the Royal Commissioners on whose report we base our claim was one of the four Members for Belfast, and as far as I know he has never since recanted his opinion on the question. Ireland is therefore practically united in believing that it has a grievance, and, feeling a grievance, it has naturally forced on the attention of its representatives in this House the absolute necessity of pressing its claim for redress upon every occasion that offers itself, whether it is pleasing to the Government or to the House or not. I am sorry to say that there was ground for disappointment and dissatisfaction last session because an opportunity for ventilating this grievance was not found, and I have only to offer for myself the explanation that the mishap occurred owing to some misunderstanding. The fact that Ireland is united on this question, as well as the frequency and urgency of the demands made upon us to bring it forward, are ample reasons for my standing here tonight in the name of the united Irish party to propose this Amendment. There is also another reason. We have as the basis of our demand an unexampled verdict in our favour. I think it is a most
  1006
  remarkable circumstance — indeed the most remarkable of its kind in political history—that a Commission constituted as the late Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland was, should have reported by so overwhelming a majority in favour of the case made by the representatives of Ireland. The House may rest assured that, until redress is afforded, that verdict of the Royal Commission will be heard of session after session. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has rather sneered at the Commission; he spoke of it as "this intelligent Commission." The phrase was not used in a complimentary sense, and I think it was a very inappropriate sneer to address to a body composed of the first financial experts of the Empire, most of whom were Englishmen, and many of whom had been actually employed in high positions in the financial departments of the State by different Governments. The third reason why I move this Amendment will obviously occur to the minds of hon. Members. If the present system of indiscriminate taxation results in injustice being done to Ireland, as Ireland contends it does, it is plain that that injustice will be aggravated by every addition to the sum levied in accordance with that system. Of course, I am alluding to the present war, which will probably add tens of millions to taxation of the country. If you bore burden yourselves, as you alone are responsible for the war, and you alone will benefit by it if any success accrues from it, I would not have anything to say in the matter; but for every £1 added to the taxation of the country by reason of the war, the injustice done to Ireland by the present indiscriminate system of taxation will be proportionately increased and aggravated. Under these circumstances it would be preposterous if the representatives of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland allowed even the preliminary stages of the session to pass without making a stand against that system. For these reasons we have brought forward this question to-night, and I propose to offer neither apology nor excuse for so doing, but I may perhaps relieve the House with the assurance that I do not intend to enter into this question in detail. The reason is perfectly plain. The speeches of the hon. Member for North Longford and the hon. and learned

  1007
  Member for Waterford, and, certainly not least, the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth have so stated our case, and proved it so conclusively, that I am relieved from going over ground so frequently trodden and with such effect. I do not intend, therefore, to do more than glance in outline at our case; and answer, if I may respectfully say so, some points in the last speech delivered on this subject by the First Lord of the Treasury. We take our stand upon what the Unionist Members of this House seem to regard as almost an Ark of the Covenant—I mean the Act of Union, and especially on the seventh article of that Act. I do not know whether hon. Members on the other side, who speak so glibly on this subject against our case, have ever read that article. If they have not, I would, in all humility, advise them to read it, because they will find there the whole justification not only for our action, but for the verdict of the Royal Commission. At the time of the Union Ireland and England had certain debts, and the debt of Ireland was very much smaller in comparison than the debt, of England; not only that, but the circumstances of the two countries were very dissimilar, and accordingly the authors of the Union—Pitt and Castlereagh—voluntarily declared that it would be unjust to tax Ireland and England on the same level, and they, consequently, provided that the countries should not be taxed on the same level until their circumstances had become similar and until the debts of the two countries had approached a certain proportion to each other. That seemed a fair offer, and probably would have been a fair offer, if the proportion which Ireland was to pay to the Imperial expenditure had been fixed at a proper figure. But it was fixed at a figure which the Irish House of Lords and all the patriotic party and all unpurchased intellect of Ireland declared would prove the ruin of the country. The natural consequence was that your taxation, owing to your foreign wars, having risen by leaps and bounds, our taxation rose similarly. You broke the treaty as soon as ever it was made, because one of its conditions was that you were to borrow not on the separate credit of each country, but on the joint credit of both, and instead of that, when Ireland could not pay the preposterous sum you demanded, of her, you broke the treaty in
  1008
  the first year or two after it was made by borrowing on the separate credit of Ireland. The result was that the provision in the Act of Union that the debt of Ireland should reach a certain proportion of the debt of England before taxation could be equalised occurred in 1816, and then you took advantage of your own wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: After Waterloo.] Yes, after Waterloo, where the Irish soldiers had saved you, you taxed Ireland on the high level of your own country. What the 7th article provided was that the two countries were to be treated as two separate entities for finance; they were legislatively united, but in finance they were to receive separate treatment, and as a matter of fact, as everyone knows, they did receive separate treatment, to a certain extent, for the first half of the present century, for it was not until 1853, when Mr. Gladstone began his policy of plunder, which was followed impartially by his successors, that the present system, under which Ireland is robbed of £3,000,000 a year, was instituted. But under the Act of Union the two countries were not to be taxed on the same level unless, not only their debts approached to a certain proportion the one of the other, but also unless their circumstances had become similar. Does any hon. Member in this House believe that the circumstances of Ireland and England have ever been similar during the last ninety-nine years? Instead of becoming similar they have been growing more and more dissimilar every year, and consequently never, during the last ninety-nine years, have you been justified in carrying out the transaction of 1817, which, let me observe, cannot supersede the Treaty of the Union. The Act of Union was a treaty made between two nations; the Act of 1817 was made by yourselves. It destroyed one of the fundamental articles of the Act of Union; you had no moral authority to do such an act, and you have no moral authority for continuing it now. Well, but, if all this be so, the Act of Union, as we contend, answers every criticism made in reply to our case. Take the first: the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says that no injustice is done because everyone is taxed alike in England and in Ireland. Why that is our grievance, that is the very thing we complain of, because we have a right according

  1009
  to the Act of Union to be taxed lower than you are, and merely to put us on an equality is doing us an injustice. Take again the suggestion of the late Leader of the Opposition—I don't know what position he occupies now. He says, "I cannot agree to discriminate in the matter of taxation, but if you Irish Members will only help me to reduce the duty on tea and tobacco and put it on the income tax, I will be quite ready to take that course." He does not see that the benefiting of the poorer classes in England and Ireland equally—which would be the result of such a course—is absolutely shutting his eyes to our case. I say if you reduce the taxation of tea in England and Ireland to-morrow, if you abolish it altogether, it will not abolish our grievance or diminish it one atom, because the poor in Ireland are entitled to be taxed less heavily than their brethren in England. Then again we are told that it is only the individual who is taxed; that it is all a mistake to think that Ireland is taxed. That is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. Well, Sir, I think it is time to give up that sort of argument. I again say that the answer to it is to be found in the 7th Article of the Act of Union. It is the individuals living within a certain prescribed area who were to be taken into consideration, and again I say that the 7th Article is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman when he talks of the individual and not the country being taxed. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks, "Are the existing taxes injurious to the industries of Ireland, or oppressive to the individual?" There is nothing in the Act of Union about taxation being injurious to Irish industries or oppressive to the individual. The Act says that it is Ireland that is to be taken into account. Lord Castlereagh, speaking on this subject, said—
  "As to the future it is expected that the two countries shall move forward together and unite as to expenditure in the measure of their relative resources. Ireland has in the 7th Article of the treaty the utmost possible security that she cannot be taxed beyond the measure of her comparative ability, and the rate of her contribution must ever correspond to her relative wealth and prosperity."
  That is the Seventh Article explained. It is not whether taxation is injurious to any particular Irish industries or oppressive to any particular individuals in
  1010
  Ireland, but whether Ireland, as a whole, is taxed beyond her relative taxable capacity. At the same time, it is obvious that not merely some industries, but all industries, and not merely some individuals, but the whole people, must be, if the country as a whole is overtaxed. The arguments on this subject are so plain that I will forbear to go through them. I should like, however, to refer to one or two authorities who will be respected in this House. The First Lord of the Admiralty was, I believe, the first to appoint a Committee to enquire into this question in 1890. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the reference to that Committee, and none of the arguments we now hear were raised in that reference. It was not the grievance of the individual that was to be enquired into, but of the country, and when I am told that we are not now to be treated as a fiscal entity, I ask whether the Government have any sense of consistency. Another gentleman who is very much before the public at present—Sir Alfred Milner—wrote a very remarkable article in the Edinburgh Review, in which he answered all the statesmen and politicians who say that Ireland is not now to be treated as a separate entity in matters of finance. He said that the separate consideration of Ireland was recognised in the Act of Union, and to refuse so to regard it, even if defensible, would be in the highest degree cowardly and impolitic. I have no hesitation in saying—I do not mean to speak with disrespect of anybody—that our case has been met by a series of puerilities and inconsistencies, of which their authors ought to be ashamed. Take some of them. The First Lord of the Treasury made a famous speech at Manchester—I do not think he has repeated it in this House—in which he said—
  "Where is the grievance? All this taxation is raised from duties on commodities. Stop using these commodities and there is no taxation. It is within the ower of the Irish people to put an end to their own grievance."
  If this is so, the whole case for Free Trade is gone. Put a tax on food and the right hon. Gentleman would answer in defence of such a policy, "You need not eat bread or bake flour; you have, therefore, no grievance." The case for an income tax is gone too. The taxation of incomes is intended to equalise the difference between the burthens on personal and

  1011
  real property, but if you tax commodities sufficiently, according to the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury, there is no reason for income tax at all, because, if persons choose to buy dutiable commodities, they tax themselves voluntarily. When the right hon. Gentleman says that we need not consume these articles, the answer is, as every man knows who examines his own conscience in the matter, that a man buys articles voluntarily, but pays the duty involuntarily, and perhaps sometimes with the help of the policeman and the excise officer. Then there is another puerile argument. The First Lord of the Treasury says: "Tax Ireland sufficiently, and you remedy all its financial grievances." He was ridiculing the idea that the taxation of Ireland ought to be regulated by the comparative taxable capacity of the country. He says that's all nonsense; if Ireland pays 2½ millions in excess, and if the taxation raised on tea, tobacco, and spirits is increased by that amount, it would be impossible for the poorer classes in Ireland to enjoy these three articles, which they would then cease to consume, and the Irish grievance would disappear, because Ireland would pay nothing if it did not consume any of these articles. Let me present another reductio ad absurdum. There is a better and more effective way of remedying the wrongs of Ireland. Kill the people altogether. Wipe them out. Send over your Nordenfelts, if you can spare any from South Africa, turn them on the Irish people, and all Irish grievances will disappear. Ireland would, according to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, pay no taxes, but the real fact is that a number of poor people would be deprived of the comforts and necessities of life without any public advantage, and the burden would be changed from a financial into an economic one. Then the First Lord of the Treasury gives us another reductio ad absurdum. He says reduce the duty on tea, tobacco, and spirits, and you may find that the amount paid in taxation will increase. There would be no grievance in that; you would be simply getting tea, tobacco, and spirits cheaper, and if you were paying more duty you would be drinking more tea and spirits and smoking more tobacco at less cost. I now come to the last point made against us. It appears we get a set off. The First Lord admits the findings of the
  1012
  Commission, but he says that there is, after all, no injustice, because there is this set-off. Although I have been accustomed to expect that sort of argument from him and others, he astonished me when he made out in this House that we were getting about £355,000 a year more than we gave. I want to make two or three remarks upon this question of set-off. In the first place I say there can be no such thing according to law. The Act that you yourself here passed in 1817 declared in the most express language that the expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom should be made indiscriminately wherever it was required. I have authority here for stating—although I hope I shall not be called upon to read it, because it would delay the House—that the provision in the Act of 1817 regarding indiscriminate expenditure has always up to the present, in the opinion of all your leading statesmen, cut at the very root of the theory of a set-off. You cannot have a set-off according to law. I say, moreover, that theory is intrinsically ludicrous. Suppose it was carried out, then, what are you going to do with Gibraltar? What taxes do you get from Gibraltar? I do not know that you get any at all, but I am perfectly certain that you do not get one thousandth part of what you spend there. Will you, nevertheless, say that, if the inhabitants of Gibraltar complain of over-taxation there is a set-off? Or again, take Portsmouth. You have a tremendous case of a set-off against Portsmouth. Portsmouth must have millions a year spent upon it, and I doubt if it gives you £10,000 a year in taxation. But do you say that set-off applies here? The absurdity of the theory was, however, best demonstrated by the answer of the hon. Member for Plymouth. He says—
  "Double the police force of Ireland, and you will remedy Ireland's grievance, because you will give back the money that you take from her."
  All the complaint we hear about over-taxation in France, in Italy, in Turkey is all bosh if this theory of a set-off is allowed at all. I have heard question after question asked in this House about the way the Fellaheen of Egypt and the Christian subjects of the Porte in Armenia and elsewhere used to be plundered by excessive taxation. But they get it all

  1013
  back—sometimes in the shape of lead to shoot them, sometimes in the shape of halters to hang them, but at all events they get it back. The money extracted from them is all spent in the country. Every penny that is raised out of Armenia is spent in Armenia. Armenia, therefore, according to the First Lord of the Treasury, has no financial grievance. What compensation is it to the Connemara peasant, who pays for his tobacco and tea a good deal more than his rent every year—what compensation is it to him to hear that the police force in Ireland is doubled? What a great consolation it is to him to hear that the Chief Secretary has spent another £1,000 upon his lodge, or that £100 has been spent in decorating St. Patrick's Hall in Dublin Castle! The thing is too ridiculous to argue. Even if you bought the hay for your troops in Kildare, what would the people gain? They would only get the extra profit which the increased demand for hay would give, that is all. I say that this theory of set-off is therefore not only contrary to law, but is in theory absolutely and intrinsically ludicrous. But it is not merely puerilities, but inconsistencies that are resorted to in order to make up the budget of the First Lord. Sometimes the position taken up is that the place of expenditure is the test; that is when you want to prove a set-off. When you want to establish a set-off you say the place of expenditure benefits, and consequently you have an overwhelming case. There is so much that goes to Ireland, and Ireland gets the benefit of it, and where, you say, is your grievance? But I observe that when you come to find out what is Imperial expenditure, the place of expenditure is not the test at all. For instance, here are items which I think everyone in the House will regard as being of an Imperial character: Volunteers—they are Imperial; War Office—that is Imperial; ordnance factories—that is Imperial; military education, shipbuilding and other things of that kind—all that is Imperial. But it is not Imperial according to your own principle, because all of it is spent in England. If you say that the cost of constabulary is to be charged to the debit of Ireland because the money is spent in Ireland, then I say you ought to deduct the £19,000,000 expended on the items I have pointed out,
  1014
  and debit them to the local expenditure in England. Have some principle, and act upon it; but for Heaven's sake do not go for two principles—one to suit yourselves in the one country, and the other to defeat us in the other country. Let me now take two or three items which in the budget of the First Lord make up the great account against us. There is the constabulary vote. The right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfied to put half of that only to the debit of Ireland. But not even half the constabulary grant ought to be charged against Ireland, because the half which he would now debit us with was expressly made an Imperial charge as compensation for the ruin inflicted on Ireland by the repeal of the Corn Laws. Now you want to take it off the Consolidated Fund to establish, forsooth, this set-off. Then take the Agricultural Grant. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that that is to be treated as local expenditure in Ireland. I deny it. Not a penny of it ought to be treated as Irish local expenditure. It was given as part of a scheme for relieving agricultural distress in the three kingdoms. It was given to Scotland on the same principle; it was given to England on the same principle, and it is plainly an Imperial charge. And, by the way, two years' arrears of this grant is due to us, and I am very much afraid that we may never see the colour of the money, for we have not even got the interest on the insufficient Agricultural Grant. Then the produce of the local taxation licences spent in Ireland is considered again as Imperial expenditure. Why should it be? The very same sort of licences exist in England, and their produce is earmarked for England, and they do not go into the Imperial accounts. The same thing happens in Scotland; they are regarded there as outside the Imperial account. By what audacity can you assume to treat the proceeds of the local taxation licences in Ireland in a different manner? One item really astonished me. The cost of the collection of Imperial taxes comes to about £241,000 a year in Ireland, and actually the First Lord of the Treasury, in order to make up the astonishing budget to which I have already referred, and which makes it appear as if there were an Irish deficit every year of £360,000, debits Ireland

  1015
  with the cost of collecting the revenue, part of which is used for the support of the troops in South Africa. A more preposterous idea I have never heard, and I do not think anybody in his senses ever dreamt of. There are several other items of expenditure which are distinctly Imperial, but which you choose to treat as Irish expenditure in the face of all reason. Take the cost of stationery; you use stationery for your Government offices in Dublin, and you do not buy a sheet of paper in Dublin. In my constituency there are excellent paper mills conducted by a political opponent of mine, a very successful and enterprising business man—a Mr. Drury. Yet you do not get a pound of paper from him; his mills may go idle although he makes excellent paper. You do not buy a single sheet of paper in Ireland, and yet you charge the cost of your stationery to the local expenditure of Ireland, although it is all used for the purposes of the Imperial Government. It is a fraud and a humbug to talk of a set-off at all. Now I have only a few more words to say. We have been met in this matter by puerilities, inconsistencies, and meannesses throughout the whole of this century. You began your series of thefts last century when you increased the Irish debt by palming off all sorts of doubtful characters, whom you dared not provide for in this country, on to our pension list. The Irish pension list, to use the famous words of John Philpot Curran, contained every, description of man, woman, and child, from the exalted excellence of a Hawke or a Rodney to the debased situation of the lady who humbleth herself that she may be exalted. Then you endowed Maynooth from Imperial funds, and when you were paying off Maynooth you charged the compensation on to the Irish Church Fund. And then what is it you do? You ask 22½ years' purchase from the Irish tithe-payers, and at the same moment you value your own security—the security of the British Government—for the payment of this annuity at fourteen years' purchase. You robbed Ireland of £370,000, and you robbed Maynooth of £400,000 by this financial trick. And you did not treat the Roman Catholics exceptionally, for there was a grant made to the Presbyterians, your
  1016
  faithful followers in Ireland, and they were treated in the same way—robbed of half their grant, and Ireland robbed of the rest. You are going on in the same way still. The money in the savings banks in Ireland yields to investors only 2½ per cent.—I do not think it gives so much; the Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably correct me—but what have you been doing? You have been lending it through the Board of Works to the Irish local authorities at 3½ per cent. You get the produce of the sale of quit rents in Ireland, and what do you do with that? It is Irish property. A Parliamentary Return contains on its face the unblushing statement that it is used for the purpose of a certain profit to the Treasury of England. Yet the First Lord of the Treasury tells us that England is to treat Ireland because of the past with British generosity and British benevolence. I wish to God she would show it by ceasing to rob us. I for one would prefer to have my own property left to me than to have to taken away and be compensated by your alms. At the same time, I have to say this: that you have robbed us of so much, that you are robbing us still of so much, you are bound to make restitution; and I warn you that, no matter what restitution you make, unless you cease the system of robbing, you will never get any thanks from the Irish people. We do not know what will happen during the next few years, but for my own part I should be untrue to myself and untrue to my constituents and to the interests of my country if I did not say that we regard our case as proved. We are thoroughly convinced that you are robbing us of at least several millions a year; and whatever be the result of this debate in this House, we will go on year after year making this motion and that motion, disturbing your arrangements, and, if necessary, discrediting your Parliament, until we make you stop this system of robbery, which is a disgrace to you, as well as an injury to us. Sir, I beg to move the Amendment.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.
  Adjourned at Five minutes before Twelve of the clock.

The Lord Vivian sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Return of the number of aliens that arrived from the Continent at ports in the United Kingdom in each month of the year 1900: ordered to be laid before the House (the Lord Churchill).
  UNITED STATES (No. 1).
  Convention between Her Majesty and the United States of America supplementary to the Convention of 19th April, 1850, relative to the establishment of a communication by ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans; signed at Washington, 5th February, 1900.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2378. Portugal (Trade for the years 1897 and 1898).

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Notice issued by the High Commissioner for South Africa, on 26th January, 1900, relating to forfeitures, etc., of property situated in the South African Republic or in the Orange Free State declared subsequently to 10th October, 1899.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANK).
  Statement of amount due to depositors on the 31st March, 1898, and of the receipts, interests, and disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1899, etc.
  ST. LUCIA.
  Regulation amending Rule 282 of the Prison Regulations, with respect to interviews between prisoners awaiting their trial and their legal advisers.

  IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN, 1855.
  Account for the year 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Return (in part) respecting: Laid before the House pursuant to order of this day, and to be printed. (No. 8.)
PETITION.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition for suppression of the practice of; of a Meeting held at Rushmere, Wandsworth Common; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TELEGRAMS TO SOLDIERS ON SERVICE.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he contemplates establishing a registered telegraphic address for each battalion or unit of our forces in South Africa; and if so, whether the scheme will be brought into operation at an early date. Your Lordships are aware, many of you from personal experience, of the great expense involved in sending telegrams to those who are at the front in South Africa. Each word costs 4s., and it is very difficult to make out a telegram to any friend at the front costing less than £2 for the address alone. It must be obvious that, under these circumstances, it is impossible for poor people to use the telegraph as a means of communication with our soldiers in South Africa; but if a system such as I have suggested in my question were adopted, no doubt many who have hitherto been unable to use the telegraph would be enabled, owing to the reduced cost, to avail themselves of it. I believe that if the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War is able to adopt a system of registered telegraphic addresses, it will be possible to address a telegram to a private soldier at the front in two words—one giving his regimental number and the other the registered telegraphic address of his regiment. I am assuming that the words "Cape Colony" or "South Africa" would be included in the word representing the

  899
  registered telegraphic address. If, further, there was a code word to signify "in hospital," it would be possible to address a message in three words to a wounded officer or soldier. I am quite sure that if the noble Marquess can see his way to adopt a plan such as I have indicated it will be greatly appreciated by the people of this country and by the soldiers who are fighting so bravely for us in South Africa. I would merely add that I hope, if any scheme is introduced, it will be as comprehensive as possible, and will include our Colonial contingents.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, my noble friend made this suggestion to me some weeks ago, and it certainly struck me as a most reasonable one. I was sure that all the Departments concerned would gladly co-operate in order to give facilities to persons in this country desiring to communicate with their friends in the field force in South Africa. I lost no time in communicating with the Post Office on the subject. The Post Office has considered it in conjunction with the Eastern Telegraph Company; a list of code words has been framed, and has been sent out to South Africa, and, I think, must have arrived there two or three days ago. As soon as the telegraphic authorities at the Cape have informed us, as they no doubt will do by telegraph, that they are able to accept the code, the new arrangement will come into force, and will be made known by the Post Office here. The procedure that will be followed will be this:—The senders of telegrams will continue to address them as they have hitherto done, giving the name of the person to whom the message is addressed and the full title of his regiment; but the telegraph authorities will translate that of their own motion into the code word. That will have the effect in the case, for example, of a regiment which has a long title of substituting for such long title a single word. The difference between the suggestion of my noble friend and the arrangement proposed to be carried out is merely this—that the translation of the address into the code word will be made, not by the person who sends the telegram, but by the telegraph authorities who transmit it to the Cape. I think that is certainly an improvement. As to the further suggestion that code words should
  900
  be introduced as the equivalents of such expressions as "in hospital," I shall be glad to have it considered, but it did not form part of the original proposition.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for the extremely satisfactory answer he has been I able to give to my question; only I do not quite understand how under the scheme the sender is to know how much he will have to pay. I should have thought it would have been better to publish the code at every post office. I hope the press will take notice of the scheme and make it as public as possible, so that everyone concerned will understand how it will be put in force.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Instructions will be issued by the post office on the subject. When the sender delivers his message at the post office he will find that he is charged for the full title of the regiment as if it was condensed into one word.

  SPION KOP—BOER TREATMENT OF BRITISH WOUNDED.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask whether it is true, as reported in the newspapers, that after the battle of Spion Kop wounded Uitlanders and Colonial soldiers were shot by the Boers on the field of battle. On Monday last, a telegram from Durban appeared in several of the newspapers to this effect, and with your Lordships' permission I will read the version of the telegram which appeared in the Standard. It was as follows—
  "The wounded soldiers here (Durban) say that the Boers showed a marked vindictiveness against the colonial troops during the fighting at Spien Kop, even going so far as to kill, in cold blood, numbers of their wounded. This barbarous conduct accounts, it is said, for the exceedingly heavy losses sustained by Thorneycroft's Mounted Infantry and the Imperial Light Infantry. Some of the Regulars even gave their regimental badges to their colonial comrades, in order to save their lives, should they happen to be left on the field."
  Of course, it is possible, and I hope it is the fact, that the statement is not well founded, but if is well founded a very barbarous crime has been committed. We must remember who these colonials and Uitlanders are. The two corps which have been mentioned—Thorneycroft's Mounted Infantry and the Imperial

  901
  Light Infantry—are mainly composed of Natalians and Cape Colonists, whose country has been invaded and whose property has been looted, and they have as good a right, and, indeed, a much better right to fight in defence of their country than the Boers have to invade it. As I say, I hope the statement I have quoted is not correct. One is glad to think that some of the statements reflecting upon the Boers have been found, on further examination, to be inaccurate; on the other hand, some of the statements to their prejudice, such, for instance, as wanton looting of property in Natal and compelling Englishmen resident in the Free State to fight against this country, are, unfortunately, only too true. I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War whether he can give us any information on the subject, and, if not, whether he will cause, at the proper time, inquiries to be made into the matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have no corroboration of the extremely painful story to which my noble friend has referred. I suggest to him that the better course will be to wait until we receive, as I have no doubt we shall, a despatch giving an account of this particular engagement, and should there then be any confirmation of this sinister rumour, it will be our business to make further inquiries.
  LORD WENLOCK: Might I ask the noble Marquess if it is true that the Colonial troops are dressed differently to the Imperial troops?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I fancy they are all dressed in khaki, but whether there is any distinguishing mark between the two I cannot say.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.