Sitting of 15 February 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
  "To empower the Southport District Tramroad Company to construct certain tramroads, tramway, and bridge between Southport and Lytham; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 2).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. John Burns.
PETITIONS.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Glenesk; Rosewell; Arniston; Niddrie; Loan-head; Newbattle; Wallyford: Polton; Carberry; South Normanton; and Gill-head; to lie upon the Table.
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum (Queen's Recommendation signified), for grant in aid; referred to the Committee of Supply.
RETURN'S, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1899–1900.)
  Copy presented,—of Estimate of the Further Amount required during the year ending 31st March, 1900, for the service of the Ordnance Factories [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 49.]
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented,—of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1888 to 1897–8 (Twenty-sixth Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the table.
  COLONIAL STATISTICS.
  Copy presented,—of Statistical Tables relating to the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom. Part XXII. for the years 1894–5–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Copy presented,—of Eighth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 50.]
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Account presented,—showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March, 1899, & c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
  BARRACKS ACT, 1890.
  Account presented,—showing the money raised and issued under the provisions of the Act, the securities created in respect thereof, and the amount expended for the purposes of the Act to the 31st March, 1899, with the Report of the Comptroller and Accountant General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]
  PUBLIC OFFICES (ACQUISITION OF SITE) ACT, 1895, SESSION 2: PUBLIC OFFICES (WESTMINSTER) SITE ACT, 1896; PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE ACT, 1897; AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES ACT, 1898.
  Account presented,—showing the moneys issued under the provisions of the Acts, the securities created in respect thereof, and the amount expended for the purposes of the Acts to the 31st March, 1898; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 53.]

  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Appropriation Account presented,—of the sums granted by Parliament for the

  55
  expense of the ordnance factories, the productions of which have been charged to other Votes for the year ended 31st March, 1899, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 54.]

  ARMY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Copy presented,—of the Appropriation Account for 1898–9, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 55.]
  NAVY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Copy presented,—of the Appropriation Account for 1898–9, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 56.]
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 29th January, 1900, entitled The North Eastern Rhodesia Order in Council, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890, THE CONSULAR SALARIES AND FEES ACT, 1891, AND THE FOREIGN MARRIAGE ACT, 1892.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 29th January, 1900, entitled The Japan (Consular and Marriage Fees) Order in Council, 1900 [by Act]; to lie. upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 29th January, 1900, entitled The China and Corea (Consular and Marriage Fees) Order in Council, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 29th January, 1900, applying the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to the British Possession of the Island of St. Helena [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS, 1865 AND 1869.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 29th January, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to a rearrangement of the number of Naval and Greenwich Hospital Pensions to
  Naval and Marine Officers of the Retired and Pensioned List of Her Majesty's Navy [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2380 and 2381 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
  Copy ordered,—"of Statement showing the Production and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Wine, Beer, and Spirits) in the various Countries of Europe, in the United States, and in the principal British Colonies; together with Statistical Tables relating thereto, in each year from 1885 to 1898, as far as the particulars can be stated (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 72, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]

  SEA FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  Copy ordered,—"of Statistical Tables and Memorandum relating to the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom in the year 1899; including also a Return showing the quantity of fish carried by railway from each of the principal ports of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, in each year from 1894 to 1899, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 71, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]

  TRADE UNION FUNDS (BANKING).
  Return ordered, "showing the number of societies or clubs, other than friendly societies and charitable and provident institutions, which have been permitted by the National Debt Commissioners or their Comptroller General, to invest under the Savings Bank Acts without restriction as to amount, giving the designation and specifying the objects of the said societies."—(Mr. Woods.)

  RIFLE RANGES CLOSED IN EASTERN DISTRICT.
  Address for "Return of rifle ranges closed in the Eastern District since the gradual

  57
  issue of the Lee-Metford rifle, beginning in 1890."—(Mr. Powell-Williams.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—BOER INVASION OF ZULULAND—POLICY OF EMPLOYING SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVE OR INDIAN TROOPS.
  MR. YERBURGH (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Boers have invaded Zululand and attacked the natives, and also that natives have been employed by the Boers as armed combatants in recent operations, he still adheres to his statement made in October last that native troops would not be employed by the Government in the present war; and whether the same pledge applies to the natives of India and to the troops of the native princes who have offered their services.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): My hon. friend has wisely placed the two branches of his question in different paragraphs, for, I need hardly say, there is no resemblance or analogy whatever between the native tribes of South Africa and the native princes of India and their troops. The aid of the latter we should be proud to have in a war carried on under ordinary conditions. The statement of policy, however, to which my hon. friend refers was based on the idea that the war in South Africa was not to be carried on under ordinary conditions, and that by common consent it was decided it should be confined to the two European races chiefly concerned. If the Boers adopt a course inconsistent with this idea we should, of course, hold ourselves free to reconsider our decision.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Boers have invaded Zulu-land; and whether provision has been made for enabling the Zulus to defend themselves against such aggression.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have been informed that on three occasions, two of them recent, the Boers have invaded Zululand, and in one district have seized as
  58
  prisoners the magistrate with his staff and police, while in another they have plundered all the stores. It is also reported that a commando with guns is moving further into Zululand. These acts have caused great alarm and unrest among the Zulus, which must spread among the Natal natives. The consequences throughout South Africa of such raids on native territories cannot fail to be very serious. The Natal Ministers have stated that they can no longer hold themselves responsible for the peaceful attitude of the Zulus; and Sir A. Milner, while greatly deploring the invasion of Zululand, points out that it is contrary to the tacit compact that natives should not be dragged into this war'. I may add that it has been decided that if native territory in the Cape Colony is deliberately invaded, the natives will be encouraged and assisted in every way to defend themselves.
  *MR. COURTNEY (). In view of the extreme gravity, which everyone will allow, of the answer made by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury to the question put by the hon. Member for Chester, and the answer by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, may I lie permitted to ask these two supplementary questions of the First Lord-First, whether he will take care that the utmost certainty shall be secured as to the reality and authority of the Boor attacks on the natives; and, secondly, whether ho is aware that in this, as in so many other instances of alleged violation of the practices of war, there are charges and counter-charges on both sides?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards the second question, I am not aware there has been any allegation in this case of any violation of the practices of war. As regards the first, asking that the most, careful investigation shall be made, I can give him every assurance he thinks desirable on that subject.

  PROPOSED DAY OF HUMILIATION.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as on 28th February, 1855, Her Most Gracious Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, issued a Proclamation that Wednesday, 21st March, 1855, be observed as a day

  59
  of solemn fast, humiliation, and prayer, for a blessing on our arms, and the restoration of peace, Her Majesty's present advisers will tender to the Sovereign similar advice that such a day may be appointed as was done during the Crimean War.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad if my hon. friend will put this question down for Monday.

  DUTCH PRISONERS AT SIMON'S TOWN.
  *MR. COURTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a cablegram from Cape Town stating that three Dutch subjects of Her Majesty detained in custody at Simon's Town had been suddenly removed to a district where martial law had been proclaimed, in spite of the issue of a writ by the Cape Supreme Court calling upon their custodian to show cause why they were detained; and will he explain by whose orders the prisoners were so removed, and where they are now detained.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to a telegram in The Times of 10th February, which does not exactly correspond with the hon. Member's statement. I am making enquiry by telegraph as to the facts.

  DISLOYALTY IN CAPE COLONY.
  MR. LOUGH (): I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the information in the hands of the Government shows that the number of Cape Colonists who are joining the forces of the Boers is increasing; whether the withdrawal of British troops from the neighbourhood of Rensburg has been hastened by the disaffection of the inhabitants; and whether the area of disaffection throughout the colony is increasing.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on this point which I can give to the hon. Member.

  TRANSVAAL GOLD MINES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the notice issued
  60
  by Sir Alfred Milner, on the 26th January, 1900, pledging Her Majesty's Government to refuse to recognise and to treat as invalid confiscations of gold mines in the Transvaal was issued on the advice of the Foreign Office, or on advice from any other departments of the Home Administration.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The notice was issued under instructions given by Her Majesty's Government after due consideration of the legal and other aspects of the question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did this instruction come from the Colonial Office in the first instance?
  [No answer was given.]

  DELAGOA MAY—NEUTRALITY OK PORTUGAL.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNER (): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that the Government of Portugal is fully observing its duty of neutrality in regard to Delagoa Bay, and effectively preventing the irregular use of that port during the war; and what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The instructions given by the Government of Portugal are such as to leave no doubt of their intention fully to observe their duty of neutrality in the present war. Her Majesty's Government have throughout given most attentive consideration to the situation in Delagoa Bay, and we are in constant communication with the officer commanding the Fleet in those waters and with Her Majesty's Consul at Lorenzo Marques.

  NAVAL WAR DESPATCHES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, can he explain why the despatches describing the operations of the Naval Brigade at the battles of Graspan and Colenso have not yet been published, although the despatches describing the operations of the military forces in those

  61
  battles were published in the London Gazette of the 26th January last; is the delay due to the Admiralty, to the War Office, or to the action, or forbearance from action, of the generals in the field; will he take steps to secure the immediate publication of these despatches; and will he also take steps to secure that in future the despatches describing the operations of the Naval Brigade are published at the same time as those describing the operations of the military forces on the same occasions.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY, Antrim, S.) (for Mr. GOSCHEN): In my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for the Eastern Division of Berkshire, I stated that I was making certain inquiries by telegraph. As no definite answer has been received I will telegraph again.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is not a reply to my question. I asked why.
  *MR. MACARTNEY: I have given the answer have been instructed to give.

  TRANSPORT CONTRACTS—THE PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL COMPANY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any, and, if so, what contracts for the transport of troops and stores for the war in the Transvaal have been entered into between the. Admiralty and the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company; whether he is aware that a member of the Government is a director of the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company; and whether it is in accordance with practice for a Government Department to enter into contracts with companies of which members of the Administration are directors.
  *MR. MACARTNEY: We have chartered many vessels belonging to the P. and O. Steamship Company for the transport of troops to South Africa, particulars of which will be given in the return now being prepared. I presume that a member of the Government is a director of the company, as the hon. Member says so, but I was not aware of it. I do not know precedents in the case one way or the other.

  SOLDIERS' ESTATES AND THE DEATH DUTIES.
  *MR. EVELYN CECIL (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could see his way to introduce any legislation for the reduction of succession or probate duties payable by the estates of soldiers killed on active service.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The estates of sailors, marines, and soldiers killed on active service are now exempt from probate or estate duties. I do not think this exemption should be extended to succession duties. To do so would really be in certain cases to relieve comparatively distant relations or stranger's obtaining an inheritance by the death of a soldier at an unexpectedly early date. I do not see why such persons should receive the inheritance free of tax. Of course it would very rarely happen that the estate, was of sufficient value to be liable.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER (): Could it not apply to lineals?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think that would be fair.

  COMMANDS AT THE FRONT.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (): On behalf of the hon. Member for S. Salford, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that several changes recently made in the officers commanding the several divisions and brigades in the army on the Modder River, the supreme command of which has recently been taken over by Lord Roberts, he is in a position to give the names of the several officers at present commanding divisions, and brigades in that army.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No, Sir, we have no information.

  IRISH MILITIA—ALLEGED COERCION TO VOLUNTEER.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State-for War whether, when Irish Militia regiments are brought to England and the men are asked to volunteer for service

  63
  at the front, he will provide Members of this House who may wish to visit Militiamen belonging to their constituencies who are in such regiments, with the opportunity of ascertaining in what way they were asked to volunteer for the front, and whether they were free agents or not, and with the necessary authority to interview them on these points.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON (): Arising out of that question, may I ask my hon. friend whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Kilkenny on a recent occasion is reported to have advised Irish soldiers to shoot their English comrades and join the Boers?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Don't stand that.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: In reply to the hon. Member who asked the original question, I have to say that this would be quite contrary to military discipline.
  MR. CREAN (): Is the hon. gentleman aware that several of the soldiers have written to their friends saying that they have been coerced into volunteering?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; I have no information to that effect, and I believe the case has been misrepresented.
  MR. CREAN: I have a letter my self—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to give the hon. Gentleman notice that if he brings Kilkenny Militia into this country I shall—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is not the time to give notice.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether nearly 50 per cent, of the 6th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles (Louth Militia), stationed at Sheffield Barracks, have signified their objection to go to the front in South Africa; and if so, whether the men are within their rights in refusing
  64
  for foreign service; and whether he will see that no undue pressure is put upon them to compel or induce them to go.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information to the effect stated in the question. But, as I have before informed the hon. Member, commanding officers have received the most explicit orders not to place any pressure upon their men to accept service in South Africa, and the Secretary of State has no reason to believe that such pressure is being exercised.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, considering he asked me to postpone the question, he instituted the inquiries which he promised to make?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot accept the statement that I promised to make any inquiry. I have on more than one occasion given the answer I have given this afternoon.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I am in the recollection of the House—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Move the adjournment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question has been fully answered.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will take the earliest opportunity to raise the question of the kidnapping of Irish Militiamen to send them abroad.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can explain the method adopted by the colonel of the 3rd Royal Munster Fusiliers (Militia), now stationed at Dover, en route to South Africa on the 21st inst., to ascertain whether any of the men were willing to volunteer for the front; whether he will inquire if the men were asked en masse while on parade; whether he is aware that very few of them understood the colonel's words; also that some men who were not on parade at the time afterwards explained to their officers that they were not willing to volunteer or be bound by what happened on parade on the occasion, and were then

  65
  told that the majority had volunteered, and that they were bound to go with them; whether he will order, before this regiment is sent to the front on the 21st inst., that each man is asked separately if he wishes to volunteer, and allowed reasonable time to give his reply, and that ho is protected against any attempt to influence him in his decision; and whether he will give the necessary authority to Irish Members of this House to interview any of their constituents who are amongst the 3rd Royal Minister Fusiliers.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: There is no information on the subject in the War Office; but strict orders are given that no pressure is to be put upon the men; and the Secretary of State is not disposed to interfere with the commanding officer, who, he does not doubt, did his duty.
  MR PATRICK O'BRIEN: Perhaps now I may be allowed to ask the Hon. Gentlemen if he did not send mo a letter from his Department asking me to post pone a question in order that he might make inquiry, and did he not tell me that personally?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I have no recollection. It has escaped my memory if I said so. A letter may have been sent on my behalf.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for letters that come from his Department?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENremained standing.
  *MR. SPEAKER: When I call the hon. Member to order I must ask him to resume his seat.
  MR. M'GHEE (): I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been directed to a letter dated 12th February, in the Irish press, from Dr. Logue, the Cardinal Primate of Ireland, with reference to the case of a Militiaman named Duffy, under orders, as he believe, for military service in South
  66
  Africa, without having been given any option of accepting or declining active service; and whether, having regard to the statement of the Cardinal on the subject of the grievances of this man, that "he knows as little of what he is about as a bullock being led to the shambles"—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This illustrates the inconvenience of not putting questions down. Members read out what would be struck out as irregular if the question were duly handed in.
  MR. M'GHEE: I am only quoting from the Cardinal's letter.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps I may inform the hon. Member that I have not received his private notice. I should be glad if hon. Members would give me two or three days notice of these questions.
  MR. M'GHEE: The case is urgent, because this man will soon be gone.
  MK. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask whether a message sent by special messenger to the War Office before noon is likely to reach the hon. Member?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am certain to be there, but when there are thirty-five questions put down I cannot undertake to reply to such questions without fuller-notice.

  IRISH ROMAN CATHOLICS—SEDITIOUS CIRCULARS.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to a green handbill circulated in Dublin addressed to Irish Roman Catholics, and headed "England's Robber War," in which it is stated, on the authority of the Rev. Father Kavanagh, that every man who engages in such war if he dies in it must suffer the loss of his soul; and what steps the Government propose to take in reference to the printing and circulating of such documents.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Circulars such as are described in the question containing a letter purporting to have been written by the Rev. Father

  67
  Kavanagh have, it is believed, been circulated privately to a limited extent in Dublin. The police have been instructed to seize and destroy the circulars when found. The matter is being carefully watched, but up to the present the Government have not considered it necessary to take further action.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the circular puts this forward as the doctrine of the Catholic Church?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): Is it not perfectly notorious in Dublin that the circular was got out by the Orange party?
  [No answer was given.]

  CAPTURED CANNON.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the number and description of the cannon captured by the Boers from the British forces since the opening of the present war down to the latest information in the possession of the Government, and how many of the Boer cannon have been captured by the British forces within the same period.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I regret to say I have not the information here. But the number of guns captured has been published several times, and there is no objection to publishing them now. But I do deprecate for the future publishing the debit and credit until the account is closed.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: When will that be?
  Subsequently Mr. WYNDHAM supplied the following figures to the press—"The Boers have captured twelve 15-pounder field guns, seven 7-pounder mountain guns. The British forces captured two Boer guns at Elandslaagte and one Maxim in the sortie from Ladysmith of the 7th December. They also destroyed one 6in. gun and two 4·7 howitzers in the sorties of the 7th and 10th December."

  VICKERS-MAXIM QUICK-FIRING GUNS.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON (): I beg to ask the
  68
  Under Secretary of State for War whether the Vickers-Maxim quick-firing gun has proved very effective in the hands of the Boers; and whether it was offered some years ago to Her Majesty's Government and refused; and if so, by whose advice.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No reports on the effectiveness of the Vickers-Maxim as employed by the Boers have been received at the War Office from South Africa. In regard to the second paragraph the gun was submitted for trial not for the Army, but for the Navy, to see if it would prove effective in repelling attacks of torpedo boats, and the report on it for that purpose was not favourable. I have already told the House that we are sending out a number of these guns to South Africa.

  THE NEW BATTERIES OF ARTILLERY.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary, of State for War if it be the intention of the War Office to arm the forty-three new batteries of artillery with guns similar to those at present in use in South Africa, or with a new pattern equal in rapidity of fire, range, and other qualities to the latest type in the possession of any Power".
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The new guns will be of the same calibre and of about the same weight as the guns now in South Africa. The new equipment will be at least equal in all their principal features to any field guns possessed by foreign Powers.

  THE EIGHTH DIVISION.
  MR. JEFFREYS (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether orders have been received at Aldershot for the battalions of the Eighth Division to draw clothing and equipment immediately on the South African scale and to bring up their establishment to war strength by drafts from the depôts; and whether it is intended that the Eighth Division should proceed forthwith to South Africa.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask my hon. friend to excuse me from replying at present to this question.

  REDUCTION OF THE ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY IN 1887.
  *SIR J. COLOMB (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given private notice, namely, whether he has been able to acquire any further information in respect to the military authority who advised a reduction of the Royal Horse Artillery in 1887.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; but it is of a negative character only. I am able to state on the authority of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge that so far from advising a reduction in the number of the Royal Horse Artillery batteries in that year, he pressed for an increase on the Estimates.

  RESERVE OF OFFICERS.
  MR. JEFFREY'S: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of officers in the Reserve of Officers have applied for employment on active service; whether, in order to fill up vacancies, the Government will employ these officers for service at home and foreign stations and for departmental work; and whether the Government will employ these officers of the Reserve to take the place of officers employed at depôts or as adjutants of Auxiliary forces.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Officers of the Reserve are being appointed to depôts and for other duties; but not at present as adjutants of Auxiliary forces, for which appointments it is considered necessary to retain officers who have recently been in actual regimental employment, and who are conversant with the office work of the depot.

  STAFF OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES.
  MR. MOON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the issue of lodging and fuel and light allowances to the wives and families of all staff and senior departmental officers now serving in the South Africa field force can be extended in favour of such other departmental officers ordered to that country on mobilisation of the Army as were drawing those allowances when ordered abroad.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The continuance of these allowances does not, as the ques-
  70
  tion seems to imply, depend on the rank of the officer drawing them, but on the length of the fixed period of tenure appertaining to the appointment held.

  VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS.
  MR. GALLOWAY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large number of casualties amongst senior regimental officers serving in South Africa, steps can be taken to provide against possible vacancies in the future by releasing adjutants of Volunteer corps for active service, and employing officers from the Reserve of Officers to take over the duty of adjutant of such Volunteer corps.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Having in view the need of maintaining the efficiency of the Auxiliary forces, the Commander-in-Chief is not prepared to take their present adjutants from them.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS—EQUIPMENT GRANTS.
  MR. NICOL (Argyllshire): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether officers chosen from Volunteer battalions for service in South Africa will receive a grant of £100 for equipment, such as is given to an officer promoted from the ranks or to a Reserve officer recalled for service.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: An officer from the Reserve of Officers if called out is granted £100 for outfit. Terms were offered for Volunteers for service in South Africa, which were accepted and, as we are at present advised, were acceptable. These did not include more for the officers who volunteered than the special capitation rate which is granted to the corps for men of any rank who volunteer.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY EQUIPMENT.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as alleged by Sir Henry Norman, some of the Imperial Yeomanry have been supplied with coloured horse rugs and black overcoats, whereas most regiments of the Imperial Yeomanry have khaki coloured great coats and horse rugs.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): These supplies have all been arranged by the Yeomanry Committee. They report that about seventy-five light coloured horse-rugs have been issued, as enough ordinary rugs were not at the time procurable. They will be replaced from the depot. As regards greatcoats, none of khaki colour have been issued. The authorized colours are navy blue and dark grey. If any black ones have been supplied, the number must have been small.

  TRANSPORT SERVICE—THE IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  MR. HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what arrangements have been made for conveying the remaining troops of the Imperial Yeomanry to South Africa.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: 1,900 men and 1,700 horses of the Imperial Yeomanry are awaiting embarkation. Of these, it is expected that 1,800 men and about 950 horses will be embarked between the 23rd instant and the end of the month, Shipping will be ready for the remainder very shortly afterwards.

  ALLEGED BOER SPIES TN THE IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the circumstances attending the arrest of two yeomen named Buck on a charge of being Boer spies.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: An inquiry is now proceeding in this matter.

  YEOMANRY HORSEMANSHIP TESTS—ALLEGED FATALITY AT BELFAST.
  MR. M'CARTAN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident which happened to a yeoman or volunteer within the grounds of the Victoria Barracks, Belfast, on Wednesday last, the 7th inst.; whether he is aware that the soldier was put upon a vicious horse to submit to the test for horsemanship; that this horse bolted, unhorsed its rider, and then trampled over his body; and that the rider was afterwards removed to the general hospital,
  72
  where he succumbed to the injuries sustained; whether lie will state the name and address of the rider; and whether, under the circumstances, steps will be taken not to employ vicious horses for i the fast riding tests.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid that the hon. Member has been completely misinformed. The horse in question was the quietest in the stables, and did not bolt. The man, James Baird, insisted that he was able to pass the test, though carefully warned beforehand, and was. promptly thrown. He was able to attend to his business on the same evening, and has enjoyed perfect health ever since. No horse has ever bolted during the tests.

  CUSTOMS DUTIES ON ARTICLES SENT TO THE TROOPS.
  MR. BARTLEY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the present uncertainty as to the customs regulations in Cape Town and Natal is checking the sending of parcels of tobacco and other comforts for the troops when the parcels are too large to go by post: whether seeing that parcels urgently needed by the soldiers may remain indefinitely at the Custom House unless some system of paying the duties is established, arrangements can be made either for enabling the senders of parcels to pay the-colonial duties in this country or for appointing an officer in South Africa to do this; and whether in some other way the War Office will make arrangements so that it shall be possible and reasonably certain for these comforts to reach our soldiers, and that without unnecessary delay.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The privilege of sending parcels of tobacco and other presents to the troops free of the Colonial Customs duties was originally intended by the Government of Cape Colony to apply only to parcels. A letter from Mr. Hamilton Gatliffe, dated January 20th, seems to show that the Capo Customs authorities were not then prepared to go so far in respect of large consignments as I gathered to be the case from his telegram of January 29th. It may be that the later and more liberal attitude indicated by the telegram is the one which the Cape Government has finally decided to adopt. But to avoid any

  73
  chance error I must ask my hon. friend to allow me to confer with the Colonial Secretary.

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has observed the extremely large items and the absence of particulars from the paper which has been distributed with regard; to the Supplementary Estimates of the War Office; and when it will be possible to lay before Parliament complete details of the expenditure of the twenty-three millions included in these Supplementary Estimates.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Nothing but a very rough estimate of war expenditure ' can possibly be framed. The actual expenditure will be shown in the Army Appropriation Account for 1899–1900 under ail the subheads of the Votes. The present mode of presenting the demands for war funds has been preferred to that of a vote of credit, as an approximate estimate of the amounts required under each Vote is presented, but it is not possible to present a more detailed statement.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the Appropriation Account give fuller details?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member must know that in the Appropriation Account every sixpence is accounted for, and you can tell exactly how much is spent on men and how much on horses.

  PUBLICATION OF WAR NEWS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government can, without detriment to the public interests, authorise the publication of earlier and fuller official information with regard to the progress of the war, and give greater freedom to the correspondents of British newspapers, so as to prevent the earliest news of important or critical events reaching this country from the Continent.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this. Every telegram describing military operations which can be published is published at the earliest possible moment. The Government must leave the restrictions on correspondents at the front to the
  74
  discretion of the military authorities in South Africa.

  RATES OF POSTAGE TO TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. CALDWELL (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the postage from this country to North-Eastern Rhodesia is 2½d., whereas the postage from that territory to this country is 6d.; and, in view of the fact that Imperial troops are now stationed throughout Rhodesia, will arrangements be made to reduce the postage from that country to 2½d.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): Yes, Sir, the postage in the outward direction is fixed by Her Majesty's Government, and that in the homeward direction by the local authorities, who are now arranging to reduce it to 4d. the ½ oz. The interests of the forces now in Rhodesia are, however, saved by the fact that non-commissioned officers and men of the Army and Navy enjoy by statute the privilege of sending and receiving ½-oz letters for one penny.

  TRANSPORTS—AUSTRALIAN COAL.
  MR. COHEN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Australian coal can be obtained at little more than half the price now being paid by the Admiralty for Welsh coal, and has been most successfully used by great English liners as well as by the United States Navy, he can inform the House why no Australian coal has been used for the British transports to the Transvaal.
  *MR. MACARTNEY: The actual price of Australian coal compares favourably with Welsh, but when the cost of freight is added the comparison has not hitherto been in favour of the former. Offers, however, are now under consideration which approximate more closely to present prices, owing to the high rates now prevailing both for Welsh coal and freight from England.
  Although Australian coal is being used by Her Majesty's ships in Australian waters for ordinary passages, reports from that station describe it as unsuitable for continuous steaming at high speeds.

  RUSSELL SHOOTING DIRECTOR.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the Committee at Aldershot, who reported unfavourably of the shooting director invented by Mr. T. A. Russell, had tested it by any firing; whether he is aware that the officer commanding the Regimental District at Hounslow in 1890, now commanding a division in South Africa, had tested it exhaustively by unofficial trials, and had reported that it nearly doubled the accuracy of the rifle practice; and whether those results were known to the Com-mander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The Committee did test it by firing at different ranges and at different sorts of targets, and reported that it was not suitable for active service. The trials carried out by the officer commanding the Regimental District at Hounslow were on a small scale, and were prior to the exhaustive trials at Aldershot. The results were known to the Commander-in-Chief and to the Adjutant-General.

  BROTHERHOOD DEPRESSION RANGE FINDER.
  MR. WEIR (and Cromartie): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the inventor of the Brotherhood depression range finder, on taking out provisional protection for his invention, offered it to the War Office for inspection and trial, and was informed that it could not be considered unless he first submitted to the authorities two complete sets of drawings; and will he state whether it is the practice of the War Office to place similar restrictions on inventions submitted to the Department; and, if so, will he say whether the rule can be so modified that inventors may not be discouraged and driven to offer their inventions to foreign Governments.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. Drawings are invariably required, and are obviously essential.
  MR. WEIR: What is the object of having drawings when you have the article itself to experiment with?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. WEIR: In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the action of the War Office in this matter.

  MARK IV. AMMUNITION.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any inquiry was made by the War Department into the cause of the failure of the Mark IV. ammunition at Bisley last year; and, if so, what has been the result of such inquiry.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. A full and minute inquiry was made, and it was decided to stop the manufacture of Mark IV. bullet and replace it by Mark V.

  MILITIA SERGEANT MAJORS.
  *MR. GRANT LAWSON (): On behalf of the hon. Member for York (Mr. BUTCHER) I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Militia sergeant majors appointed prior to February, 1889, were entitled to the rank of warrant officers; will he explain why an Army Order was issued in February, 1889, depriving Militia sergeant majors appointed after that date of the rank of warrant officers; whether under the Special Army Order No. 203 of 3rd November, 1899, Militia sergeant majors will receive the pay and allowance, but not the rank of warrant officers; why in the event of a warrant officer being killed in action his wife and children are entitled to pensions, but in the event of a Militia sergeant major being killed in action his wife and children are entitled to no pension whatever; and whether the Government will take into consideration the question of raising all Militia sergeant majors to the rank of warrant officers, or otherwise ensuring pensions for the wives and children of those killed in action.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Militia sergeant majors never were warrant officers, and as. during peace they are only employed for a portion of the year it is not considered necessary to give them the rank or pay. During embodiment, however, they are granted the same pay and allowances as in the Line, but warrant rank is not conferred upon them. The question of the

  77
  provision for their wives and families in the case of men killed in action or dying in consequence of foreign service is under consideration.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC COMMISSION.
  MR. KEARLEY (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Department what pensions or retiring allowances have been or are being paid by the Royal Patriotic Commissioners to persons employed by the Commission. What are the details of those at present in enjoyment and the amount of capital fictuarially reserved to secure their payment. Whether he is aware that Clause 5 of the Patriotic Act, 1881, expressly forbids the granting of any pension or retiring allowance without the approval of the Treasury. That the Commissioners have guaranteed, notwithstanding, a pension to the present secretary upon retirement. Whether such undertaking has received Treasury assent. And whether the Government will undertake to see that no further misapplication of the funds in such direction be permitted.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Superannuation allowances have been granted from time to time to officers and clerks of the office, with Treasury consent, in accordance with the requirements of the Patriotic Fund Act. The amounts now outstanding are £235 8s. 8d. a year, for which £1,550 has been set aside by the actuary from the capital. Subject to the approval of the Treasury, the present secretary will on retirement be granted a pension in accordance with the Act already mentioned.

  CRIMEAN PENSIONERS.
  MR. FLAVIN (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether ho is aware that an Army pensioner named William Coleman, who took part in the Crimean War, and fought in the battles of Alma, Inkerman, and Sebastapool, and also went through the Indian Mutiny and other engagements, for which he holds six medals, during which he was severely wounded, was compelled, owing to insufficient pension, to apply to the Thrapston Board of Guardians, Northants, for outdoor relief; and whether, owing to the insufficiency of pension granted to Coleman and other Crimean veterans, the War Office can see
  78
  their way to giving them some small increase of pension.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: William Coleman has, I am informed, been awarded the highest rate of pension which present regulations allow, namely 1s. 1d. a day.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to ask if this man was not employed by the Duke of Devonshire. Cannot he do something to prevent the man going into the workhouse?
  [No answer was given.]

  CANTEEN AND MESS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
  MR. FLYNN (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state how many officers on active service are connected with the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society; and is not this society an association trading for profit; and if so, is it consistent with the Queen's Regulations that officers on active service should engage in trade competition with taxpaying traders and contractors.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Eleven officers of the Imperial Army on the active list hold shares in the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, representing in all capital to the amount of £821, or a maximum annual dividend of £41 1s., which gives an average annual income of about £3 15s. a head. The hon. Member has been informed in the House more than once that this is not a trading association but a provident society, conforming in every way with the conditions laid down for such societies in the Provident Societies Act, 1893. As such it is not contrary to the Queen's Regulations for officers on the active list to take part in its management.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that this provident society pays a dividend of 5 per cent., and is there anything to-prevent the relatives of the officers holding a large number of shares?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have stated precisely what the interest of the officers amounts to—they get about £3 15s. each a year.

  REGIMENTAL CANTEEN CONTRACTS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether commanding officers of regiments in Ireland will be allowed freedom in connection with future contracts for groceries, provisions, and other articles supplied to regimental canteens; whether under present arrangements these contracts are practically decided by staff officers, though they are of entirely regimental character according to Queen's regulations; and will the War Office give instructions to commanding officers to procure supplies from local contractors in cases where price, quality, and conditions of supply are satisfactory.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: General officers have power to make district contracts when they consider it in the interests of the troops. There is no reason for depriving the general officers in Ireland of this discretionary power. District contracts are decided by boards composed of regimental officers drawn from all parts of a district and not of staff officers, though a staff officer with special knowledge regarding supplies generally attends to give advice. There is no reason for fettering general or other commanding officers in their choice of the source from which they may purchase supplies for canteens.
  MR. FLYNN: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. But may I ask him if it is not a fact that the officers who decide as to these contracts are connected with the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society.
  [No answer was given.]

  CATERING FOR TROOPS EMPLOYED IN DISAFFECTED DISTRICTS—THE WELSH COAL RIOTS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what proportion of the amounts claimed by those who catered for the troops at Aberdare and Pontypridd in 1898 has been paid out of Imperial funds; whether any of the balance not paid by the War Office has been paid from local or other sources; and, if so, how much; if he is aware that the amounts claimed were based on the, rates for catering specifically agreed
  80
  upon between those who catered and the stipendiary magistrates for the districts in which the troops were quartered; and that the non-payment of a large portion of the amounts arranged under such contracts has involved some of the caterers in serious embarrassment; and whether he will take steps to let tradesmen throughout the country know that the War Office and county councils are in no way bound by contracts for the catering of troops made by stipendiary or other magistrates when troops are sent to maintain the peace in disaffected districts.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Of £4,307 claimed, £1,531 has been paid out of Imperial funds. It is stated that a further £105 has been paid by the Glamorgan County Council. There is no knowledge at the War Office of the arrangements as to the rates for catering which were made by the chief constable of Glamorganshire; but it is understood that the county council considered the claims exorbitant. The whole question of the incidence of the cost of catering for troops in such circumstances is under consideration.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I am not concerned with the arrangements made by the chief constable, and my question referred to that made by the stipendiary magistrate.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: My answer covers both.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider the advisability of increasing the maximum rates allowed by the War Office for the catering of troops when quartered in districts where rioting is anticipated or has actually occurred.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The rates for billeting are fixed by Act of Parliament, and the question of liability for any charge not covered by those rates is under the consideration of the Government.

  COLOURED LANDOWNERS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. DRAGE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether, under the existing laws of the Transvaal and the Orange

  81
  Free State, any impediments are placed in the way of coloured persons desirous of acquiring and holding land. Whether, so far as the Transvaal is concerned, any such impediment constitutes an infringement of Article XIX. of the Convention of 1884. And whether coloured persons are under any disabilities as to the acquisition and ownership of land in Cape Colony and Natal.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In the South African Republic natives and other coloured persons are not allowed to acquire land in their own name. Application has to be made to the Superintendent of Natives, who took the place of the British Secretary for Native Affairs and the Native Location Commission provided for by Articles 13 and 31 of the Pretoria Convention. I do not, therefore, think that the existing arrangement is a breach of Article XIX. of the London Convention. In the Orange Free State I believe that coloured persons of partly European origin are allowed to acquire and hold land, but not other coloured persons. Indians are practically excluded from settling in the State at all. In the Cape and Natal coloured persons other than natives residing in locations (who own land in common) are not under any restriction as to acquiring and owning land.

  FAMAGUSTA HARBOUR.
  MR. BILL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government proposes to make such alterations in the harbour of Famagusta as will make it more convenient for trade purposes; and whether due care will be taken in the process of carrying out such alterations that no damage shall be done to, and that there shall be no interference with, the ancient walls and gates of the town.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The improvement of the harbour at Famagusta will be taken in hand as soon as the necessary preliminary legislation has been passed by the Legislative Council. Every care will be taken to avoid any undue interference with the ancient walls and gates. I am in communication with the High Commissioner on this point.

  SAVINGS BANKS.
  SIR J. LENG (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether
  82
  he can now state what steps he has taken and proposes to take in pursuance of the intimation he gave to the House on 8th June last relative to Savings Banks.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I took steps, as I promised to do, for obtaining some fresh information on this subject during the recess, especially with regard to the system adopted in France, and I have a measure in course of preparation based on the result of those inquiries; but I cannot yet say when I may be able to introduce it.

  REPORTS OF FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state at what date he will issue the reports of the inspectors of factories for 1899, promised by him last August for an early date in this session.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have considered carefully, with the Chief Inspector of Factories, the question of the reports of the work of his Department. New arrangements hare been made for the preparation of the great mass of material with which his annual report has to deal; and he expects to have it ready for publication in May. With this object, it is necessary to omit the annual returns of persons employed which in recent years have been tabulated for the purposes of the report.

  DANGEROUS LAMPS AND OILS.
  MR. PROVAND (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the explosion of a petroleum lamp at Salford, on 29th December last, which caused the death of five persons; whether he has considered the verdict of the jury in the inquest held on the five bodies, and the remarks of the coroner, who strongly condemned the use of dangerous lamps such as the one which caused the accident; and whether he intends this session to introduce the Bill to deal with the sale of lamps, and carry out the promise to Parliament made by the Under Secretary to the Department on 15th March, 1899,

  83
  when he informed the House that the Government had decided to deal with the questions of dangerous lamps and oils, and that their Bill had long been in preparation and was in a forward state.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have had before me the evidence in the case to I which the hon. Member refers; and am only too well aware of the danger which arises from the use of inferior lamps. But the whole question of petroleum lamps and oils is, as the hon. Member will recognise, a very controversial one, and I fear that I cannot promise legislation upon it this session.

  COMPENSATION TO INJURED MERCHANT SEAMEN.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government intends this session to introduce a Seamen's Compensation Bill to compensate seamen if injured, or the relatives of those killed, in manner similar to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The Government cannot undertake to introduce any Bill on this subject this session.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a letter, dated 27th November, 1899, "from the Secretary of State for the Colonies relating to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, in which he said that when the Act was passed he certainly had no idea that pieceworkers or casual labourers, if engaged in bon^a fide employment, could or would be excluded from the benefits of the measure; and whether, having regard to the above statements, he will introduce a short Bill this session to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, and bring within its scope casual labourers and pieceworkers.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir. I have seen a copy of the letter of my right hon. friend. I will only add that it has not yet been decided authoritatively that casual labourers are excluded from the benefits of the Act, and that I have no doubt that pieceworkers in regular employment are fully within its provisions. I have
  84
  already stated more than once that in any case the Government does not see its way to legislation on the subject at the present moment.
  MR. PROVAND: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relatives of a casual labourer are not likely to be in a position to carry a case to the Appeal Courts?
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I believe that only one county court judge has given an adverse decision.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION EXPENSES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department why the return relating to Private Bill Legislation expenses ordered by the House on the 28th of April of last year has not been presented, and when it is likely to be in the hands of Members.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): I have received from two of the Departments the portions of this return for which they are responsible, and I hope within a few weeks to receive the remainder from the other two departments concerned. It will then be issued as soon as it can be printed. The return is an extremely voluminous one, and has to be collected from hundreds of local authorities, railway and other companies, any one of whom by failing to give the required information may delay the whole return.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will the return include similar expenses relating to light railways?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: That matter has been considered, and as it is thought the information may be useful it will be included.

  INDICATOR OF DEBATES.
  MR. MOON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether an indicator of the debates can be placed in the tea room.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (): I beg at the

  85
  same time to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, as the news room is frequented throughout the sittings of the House, he will place an indicator of the debates there in preference to the tea room.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): In answer to my hon. friend and to the question of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, I beg to say that I will give their suggestions my favourable consideration. I am inclined to think that of the two proposals that which suggests that an indicator should be placed in the newspaper room is the best.

  BRAKES ON PASSENGER TRAINS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether any, and, if any, how many railway companies have introduced on passenger trains the brake system of communication between railway passengers and the guard.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): This system has been in use for some years past on the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire or Great Central Railway, and also on the Furness and Cambrian Railways. Almost all the principal companies have now decided to adopt it. Correspondence between the Board of Trade and the companies on the subject of railway passenger communication will shortly be presented to Parliament.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to give effect to Clause 2 (5) of the Mercantile Marine Fund Act, 1898, which provides that, in so far as may be compatible with the efficiency and safety of the lighthouse service, telegraphic communications with lighthouses shall be available for private messages at reasonable charges; and, if such is the intention, when he will be in a position to state the terms and conditions upon which these facilities will be granted.
  MR. RITCHIE: The question how far electrical communication with lights houses may be made available for private messages is one of the points which have been referred to an Inter-Departmental Committee, who are dealing with the whole subject of communications between lighthouses or light vessels on the shore. Until I have received the report of that committee I shall not be in a position to-give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

  ELECTRIC TRACTION ON THE METROPOLITAN UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the electric traction experiments on the Metropolitan Under-ground Railways; and whether there is any prospect of electric traction being introduced on those railways at an early date.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am glad to be able to state that substantial progress has been made with the experimental work on the District Railway, and that it is proposed to run a train for the conveyance of passengers between certain points on the line in the course of a few weeks.

  SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS—PROPOSED NEW PIERS.
  *SIR LEONARD LYELL (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he could state what schemes for new piers to be constructed under the Small Piers and Harbours Act, 1896, have been submitted to the Congested Districts Board; whether a plan has been submitted from St. Margaret's Hope, Orkney, and, if so, will he say what action the Congested Districts Board has taken, and the amount of grant allowed; whether a plan has been sent from North Ronaldshay, and, if so, what assistance is to be given; whether plans have been approved for piers at Longhope and North Walls, and, if so, what will be their cost, the amount of public money given, and the amount to be raised locally by taxation and by voluntary gift; and whether other plans have been submitted, and, if so, what action the Congested Districts Board have taken with regard to them.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The

  87
  following schemes have been submitted to the Congested Districts Board for Orkney Piers: (1) Egilshay, (2) Burray, (3) St. Margaret's Hope, (4) North; Ronaldshay, (5) Longhope, (6) Moness, (7) North Ness, (8) South Ness. No definite application has come from Zetland. A plan has been submitted for St. Margaret's Hope. This application will be considered in due course, and when, with due regard to the claims of other districts it can be taken up. A plan has also been received for North Ronaldshay, and the board are awaiting information they asked for on 6th October last, The board have approved a plan for Long-hope Pier. The estimated cost is £3,633, of which the board will find 75 per cent., or £2,725 on certain conditions. The proprietor offered to give free a site and all material that can be found on the estate. Further, he will build North Ness boatslip, and along with the inhabitants will construct a road from Walls to Hoy, and a road over the Ayre. These roads and the boatslip are estimated to cost £2,130; and the local contribution for Longhope Pier is £908, besides site and, certain materials. The only other plans yet received are for Egilshay and for Burray, where grants of £375 and of £1,260 respectively have been made on the usual conditions.

  ISLAND OF LEWIS—FISHERMEN'S DWELLINGS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress has been made with the scheme for the erection of fishermen's dwellings in the Island of Lewis.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Congested Districts Board secured from the proprietor of the Island of Lewis an offer to feu direct to fishermen twenty-six quarter-acre plots at the rate of £4 an acre (the minimum rate allowed by the Court of Session for this entailed estate) in the Battery Park, Stornoway. They offered to bear the law costs and to construct necessary enclosures, roads, drains and a water supply pipe—all free of cost to the feuar. They also offered to lend £120 to each feuar to enable him to erect his house—principal and interest being repayable by instalments in thirty years. Full intimation was made of these proposals, but, as the result was one solitary application, the Board could not
  88
  go further with the scheme, though they are quite willing to make another attempt if convinced that applications will be forthcoming.

  SUNDAY TRAWLING IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received from the Free Church Presbytery of Lewis copies of resolutions carried at a meeting held at Back, Lewis, on the 13th December last, calling attention to the depredations made by illegal trawlers around the coast of Lewis, and pointing out that the masters of these vessels make a constant practice of trawl-in the lochs and bays on Sunday, when they conduct their operations unmolested; and will he state what action has been taken in the matter.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The resolutions in question were received. Since that time the "Vigilant" has detected the trawler "Rex" illegally working in the locality, with the result that the master of that vessel was fined £105. Since then the "Vigilant" has again been cruising off the Lewis, but without detecting any infringement.

  THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  *MR. COURTNEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has ratified the Convention for a pacific settlement of international disputes agreed to at the Hague; and whether, if such ratification has taken place, Her Majesty's Government has appointed four arbitrators in pursuance of Article XXIII. of the Convention; and, if so, can the names of the arbitrators be now given; if these have not as yet been appointed, will early steps be taken to make an appointment.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The Convention in question was signed in October last, but has not yet been ratified, so far as we are aware, by the Governments of any of the signatory Powers. Her Majesty's Government will be ready to appoint four arbitrators when ratification has taken place.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  SIR SAMUEL HOARE (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a

  89
  copy of the resolutions passed by the Norfolk Chamber of Agriculture on Saturday last, and whether he is able favourably to consider them.
  *MR. AKEKS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): My right hon. friend has received the resolutions to which my hon. friend refers, and with regard to the matter to which, as he understands, the greatest importance attaches namely, the movement of animals for slaughter—he is glad to say that he has been able to give certain facilities for this purpose in an order which comes into operation to-day, a copy of which he will be happy to give to my hon. friend. The other suggestions of the Norfolk Chamber will not be lost sight of, but it would be unsafe as yet for him to sanction any further relaxation of the restrictions.

  INDIA FAMINE RELIEF.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the unhappy condition of India and the unprecedented demands on the Indian revenues for famine relief, the Government will consider the propriety of making a substantial grant to India from the British Treasury.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to make any grant from Imperial funds towards the relief of those suffering from the famine in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): We do not propose to make a grant to India from the British Treasury for famine purposes, as ire have no reason to believe that the financial means and credit of the Government of India are insufficient to meet all demands that are likely to arise in connection with the relief of distress caused by the present famine in India.

  OYSTERS BILL.
  MR. LODER (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government intend Votes to introduce the Oysters Bill again this session.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Since the publication of Dr. Bulscrode's report and since legislation was proposed on this subject, there is no doubt that a good deal has been done by voluntary action to remove the evils complained of, and it is alleged that further improvement is still in progress. I have directed one of the medical inspectors of' the Board to report me as to this. The places complained of are comparatively few, and I am awaiting the inspector's report before deciding whether reintroduction of the Bill is necessary and desirable or not.

  REORGANISATION OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  SIR W. HART DYKE (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Departmental Committee on the reorganisation of the Education Department will, before presenting their final report, consider the advisability of transferring to the new Board of Education the educational powers now exercised by the Board of Agriculture; and whether, before the Act of last session comes into operation, any opportunity will lie afforded for the discussion in Parliament of any reports or Orders in Council which may be presented as the result of the deliberations of the Committee.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GROST,): The matter referred to in the first paragraph of the question is now under consideration. In reply to the second paragraph of the question, I may say that the reports of the Committee relate to matters of office reorganisation and are for the most part carried out as soon as made. But any Order in Council proposed to be made under the Board of Education Act will be laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the Act, before it is submitted to Her Majesty in Council.
  *SIR F. S. POWELL. (): Will they be printed and issued with the Votes?
  Sin J. GORST: What?
  *SIR F. S. POWELL: The Orders in Council.
  SIR J. GORST: They will be laid on the Table of the House.
  *SIR F. S. POWELL: But will they be printed?
  SIR J. GORST: That is a matter over which I have no control.

  ACQUISITION AND CONTROL OF ART OBJECTS IN NATIONAL MUSEUMS.
  *LORD BALCARRES (): I beg to ask the Vice-President; of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Director of the Art Museum is in future to be directly and finally responsible for the acquisition of art objects, as was recently recommended by a select Committee of this House, or; whether the responsibility is to be shared between the director and the new Council of Artists; whether the Council of Artists will sanction the acquisition of all art objects, and whether on questions of authenticity, art value, and suitableness for museum purposes, they will be empowered to control or override the decisions of the director, or if their functions are to be purely advisory; and; whether it will be still possible for the museum officials to take the opinion of expert antiquarians.
  SIR J. GORST: The answers to the alternative questions in the first paragraph are both in the negative. In I regard to the remainder of the question it is open to the President of the Board of Education to take the advice of such persons as he may think desirable on all such matters.

  TRAINING CURRICULUM FOR PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. MORRELL (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will consider the propriety of modification of Schedule V.* of the Day School Code, 1899, by making English (grammar) an optional subject in the training curriculum of pupil teachers, with a view to making elementary science of necessary subject instead; whether he will frame a scheme for elementary science: in such a form as to cover the require-
  92
  ments (in the first instance) for object lessons in Standards I., II, and III., as set out in supplement to Schedule TL, alternative course in mechanics, botany, horticulture, principles of agriculture and experimental, arithmetic, physics, and chemistry; and whether he will consider under Clause 101 e, the propriety of making English (grammar) a specific instead of a class subject, with a view to making elementary science, as so set out, a necessary first-class subject in Standards I., II., and III.
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council will consider the suggestions of the hon. Member, but I cannot give any definite pledge till such consideration has taken place.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to encourage the construction of light railways in the Highland crofting counties, the Treasury will consider the expediency of arranging for a free grant of half the estimated cost of the line.
  MR. HANBURY: Where the poverty of a district is extreme, and the scheme proposed promises exceptional advantages to local interests, the Treasury is prepared to make a grant of public money equal to one half the estimated expenditure. This has already been done in one instance (the Dornoch line). But each case must be judged by its merits, and before a grant is made the Treasury must be satisfied that the district has contributed to the utmost of its means to a railway made only in the interest of the district.

  CABLE DELAYS IN LIVERPOOL.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn by Liverpool cotton merchants to the serious delay which occurs in communicating by I cable with the United States, after ordinary business hours in Liverpool and Manchester, but during business hours in New York, owing to the refusal of the Postal authorities to allow the cable companies to telephone direct to their clients messages received, or to allow the

  93
  latter to telephone direct to the cable companies messages for transmission by cable; whether he is aware that the delay involved in sending such messages through the Post Office frequently leads to the loss of business, which is diverted to the Continent, or elsewhere; whether the Postal authorities refuse to allow such direct communication between subscribers within the same telephone area, because they hold that telephone messages in connection with cablegrams should be charged for as inland telegrams, whether the merchants concerned have offered to be registered as parties to whom cablegrams may be telephoned by the cable companies, and to pay for all such messages sent or received by telephone, as if they were telegrams, as well as a registration fee, if required; and whether he will recommend the acceptance of this offer, or endeavour to make some other arrangement whereby the rights of the Post Office may be safeguarded without detriment to business requirements.
  MR. HANBURY: The company naturally cannot be allowed to intercept a telegraphic message on its way to the person to whom it is addressed. The Postmaster General, however, will give further consideration to the question, and endeavour to make some arrangements which will meet the difficulty now experienced in the transmission of such messages.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: Will this apply to in-coming as well as outgoing messages?
  MR. HANBURY: Primâ facie, so far as I can see, there would be no objection to merchants telephoning to the secretary of the cable company asking him to send on messages. But the whole question is being reconsidered.

  STRADONE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any complaints have been recently made to the Department as to the delivery of letters under the new arrangements at Stradone, county Cavan; whether he is aware that some hundred families are not attended to owing to the route taken by the rural carrier; and
  94
  whether some steps will be taken to see that each portion of the sub-district is equally served.
  MR. HANBURY: No complaints have recently been made as to the delivery of letters at Stradone, County Cavan. The Postmaster General is not aware that some hundred families are not attended to owing to the route taken by the rural letter carrier. There are several rural postmen working from Stradone, and it is believed that every family in the district has now a delivery of letters. If the hon. Member can quote any particular case in which the arrangements are not considered satisfactory, inquiry shall be made.

  LURGAN POST OFFICE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the proposed new post office in Lurgan, County Armagh, whether he can say if the site has been yet secured; in what portion of the town it is situate; can he say about what date it is intended to commence the building; and whether he can say about what date the new premises are expected to be open for postal and telegraph business.
  MR. HANBURY: Legal arrangements are in progress for acquiring the site of the present post office at Lurgan, but it cannot yet be stated when the purchase will be completed. Plans of the new building have not yet been prepared, but it is expected that the work will be begun during the ensuing financial year.

  ATHLEAGUE POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. HAYDEN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters for Four Roads, County Roscommon, and district, arriving by limited mail at about 9.30 each morning are brought by mail car to Athleague, which is within three miles of that place, and kept there until next morning when they are brought by letter carrier, being thus delayed for over twenty hours within throe miles of their I destination; and whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a second delivery between Athleague and

  95
  Four Roads, or as an alternative, one delivery embracing the two mails, and also an extension of the house to house delivery in the district.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is making inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether any improvement can be made in the postal service to Four Roads, County Roscommon, and what arrangements are needed for completing the extension of the house-to-house delivery in the district. It is necessary to take returns of the correspondence, and this will occupy some time; but the Postmaster General will let the hon. Member know as soon as possible what can be done in the matter.

  RENT APPEALS AT BELFAST.
  MR. DALY (): I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Chief Land Commissioners heard appeals at Belfast in December last, and that, out of forty-eight cases heard, in twenty-two instances the rent was raised, twenty-four confirmed, and two only reduced; and whether he can say if the Chief Land Commissioners viewed the farms, or whether the rent returned by the court valuers was adhered to in every case by the Chief Commissioners; and, if not, can he state in how many instances the rent was increased, confirmed, or lowered from that returned by the court valuers.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The figures are not correctly stated in the first paragraph. The total number of appeals disposed of by the Commissioners at Belfast in December was sixty-five. Of these the decisions of the Sub Commissioners were affirmed in twenty-seven cases; in two cases the rents were reduced, in thirty-five cases the rents were increased, and one case was dismissed. It is not the practice of the Chief Commissioners to view the holdings. In forty-five cases the judicial rents, as fixed on appeal, were above the estimates of the court valuers; in nine cases below and in ten cases equal to the rents estimated by the valuers.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not the habit of the Chief Commissioners to inspect the
  96
  holdings in order to estimate the value before deciding an appeal, and—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not argue the question.

  IRISH UNION SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. FIELD (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government, in the impending changes, to abolish the disparity in the incomes of teachers in non-contributory and contributory unions in Ireland; and whether an amending. Act will be introduced to restore uniformity of treatment.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): As the hon. Member is. already aware, the Irish Government have recommended a proposal of the Commissioners of National Education for a large scheme of reform in the system of primary education in Ireland, and the Treasury have accepted, generally, the financial portions of the scheme. The details of the scheme are still under discussion, and, pending the explanation of the new scheme as a whole, it is not considered desirable to enter into particulars of the changes contemplated.

  F. B. CHUTE'S ESTATE, CASTLE ISLAND.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large number of tenants on the estate of F. B. Chute, situate near Castle island, signed: agreements to purchase their holdings in October, 1897, and that the Irish Land Commission in November, 1898, sanctioned the agreements and purchase money; and if so, why is such a length of time allowed to elapse before the completion of the sale to the tenants.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): In thirty cases upon the estate of Mr. F. B. Chute in the County Kerry agreements under the Land Purchase Acts were lodged in the Land Commission in the month of December, 1897. The applications for advances in all those cases were sanctioned during the months of April and November, 1898. The vendor's title was lodged by his solicitor's.

  97
  on the, 4th February, 1899, and the rulings thereon were issued from the office of the Land Commission on the 15th May following. I am informed by the solicitors having carriage of the sale that unexpected difficulties have arisen in apportioning the head-rent, but that after very considerable labour on their part these difficulties have now been practically overcome, and it is expected that the sales will shortly be completed.

  ALTALORE TENANT FARMERS' GRIEVANCES.
  *M.R. DOOGAN (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that numbers of tenant farmers throughout Ireland, and particularly in the Altmore district of Tyrone, are excluded from the benefits of the Land Acts, either in consequence of joint tenancies or the existence of reversionary leases; and whether the Government will amend, the law, and thereby save these classes of tenants from eviction, I because of their inability to continue paying their present unreduced rents.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Joint tenants are not excluded from the benefits of the Land Acts; their case is expressly provided for by Section 5, Sub-section 3 of the Land Act of 1896. The Government have no information as to the number of cases to which those provisions apply, and further legislation on the subject is not necessary, and will not, therefore, be introduced.
  *MR. DOOGAN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the courts have decided that joint tenants holding under leases are excluded from the benefits of the Land Act, while ordinary joint tenants are only to be dealt with at the discretion of the Commissioners?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that question.
  MR. FLAVIN: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that joint tenants can have a second judicial rent fixed without the consent of the landlord? Have they a right to go into the court?.
  [No answer was given.]

  EARL OF GOSFORD'S ESTATE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, with refer-
  98
  ence to the appeals against the amount of the value of several holdings on the estate of the Earl of Gosford, whether the appeals were made to the Chief Commissioner's Court against the amount of the true value fixed by the Sub-Commissioners; whether the law, as at present, obliges the Land Commission to fix a less amount for the true value than the price which the tenant could by competition obtain in the open market: whether he is aware that, in the cases of Robert Carlyle, Stevenson, Glenny, and Patterson, the gross amount of £765 fixed by the Sub-Commissioners was reduced by the Chief Commissioner to £520: and whether the tenants have any remedy or are entitled to any compensation for the large sum of which they have been thus deprived by the Appeal Land Commission.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): It has been found necessary to refer this question to the Judicial and other Commissioners by whom the cases mentioned were heard, and if the hon. Member will repeat the question on Tuesday next I hope to lie then in a position to reply to it.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL GRANTS IN URBAN DISTRICTS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution recently adopted by the Youghal (County Cork) Urban District Council, pointing out the hardship inflicted upon occupiers of agricultural land situated within urban districts under the present system; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of extending the provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, with a view to enable such occupiers to obtain the benefit of the Agricultural Grant.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The question of extending the benefits of the Agricultural Grant to the occupiers of lands in towns was most carefully considered at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898, and it was found quite impossible to adopt any scheme other than that embodied in the statute. I may remind the hon. Member that agricultural land in towns is only assessed to one-fourth of some of the taxes.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the high valuation placed on such land casts a very heavy burden on the occupier?
  [No answer was given.]

  ANNALY ESTATE, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieuten ant of Ireland whether he is aware that in 1894 a number of tenants on the Annaly (Rathcliue) estate, County Longford, signed undertakings to purchase their holdings through the Land Commission, and that, after repeated delays and an application in Judge Ross's Court, agreements were entered into by a number of tenants to purchase under the Act of 1896; whether he is aware that in the case of well-to-do tenants on the property these; agreements have been passed, but in the case of poorer tenants the applications for advances have not been approved, also that the tenants who purchased were allowed an immediate reduction of 15 per cent, off their rents, whilst those who through no fault of their own were unable to purchase were not given any reduction; and whether, as those tenants were induced to sign their agreements on the promise that they would be vested inside two years, and as now nearly six years has elapsed without the promise being kept he will press upon the Land Commission the necessity and desirability of having the vesting orders issued without any further delay.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): There are no purchase proceedings now pending in the Land Commission on the estate of Lord Annaly. In all cases in which applications for advances were lodged the holdings have been vested.

  BELMULLET UNION CLERK'S SALARY.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu ! tenant of Ireland whether he is aware that compensation has been refused to the clerk to Bolmullet Union for diminution of salary under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, on the ground that he got i an increase of salary as clerk of the district council; and can the Local Government Board explain why they
  100
  sanctioned the payment of compensation to the clerks of union in the County Sligo under precisely similar conditions.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): There seems to be some misapprehension on these matters. Where the duties of "existing" officers are increased the Local Government Board fix the increase of salary proportionate to the increase of duties. Where salaries or emoluments of such officers are diminished they are entitled to compensation, but the amount of the compensation is, under Section 115, Sub-section 18 of the Local Government Act fixed by the Treasury, and not by the Local Government Board.
  MR. TULLY: And are these officers entitled to compensation when their I salaries are increased?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.
  Several HON. MEMBERS: But that is just what has been done.

  ROSCOMMON MAGISTRACY.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the magistrates who usually adjudicated at Ballaghaderreen Petty Sessions have, since the district has been changed to the administrative county of Roscommon, been prevented by the resident magistrate from acting at the local court; and what steps will be taken to remedy the inconvenience that has been created in the district by thus disqualifying all the local magistrates.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Under Section 69 of the Local Government Act, when a portion of one county is added to another it becomes an integral portion of the county to which it is added, and the justices of the latter acquire, and of the former are deprived of, jurisdiction over it.

  ENNIS MARKET TOLLS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrangements can be made to transfer to the Ennis Urban Council the right of

  101
  levying the tolls from fairs and markets in the town of Ennis at present collected by a private individual.
  MR. ATKINSON (for MR. G. W. BALFOUR): Under Section 31 of the Local Government Act, 1898, the power conferred by the 104th section of the Public Health Act, 1878, upon an urban county authority to purchase a market shall extend to authorise the purchase of any franchise or right to hold a market or fair, whether under statute or letters patent.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will that be done at once?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have nothing to add.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then what good is it?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland whether he has received a resolution adopted by the Municipal Council of the city of Dublin respecting the Science and Art Department; and whether it is the intention of the Government to transfer the control and management of this department in Ireland to the new Agricultural and Industries Department.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): On Thursday last I replied to a, similar question addressed to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the reply given on that occasion. [See The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. 78, p. 937.] '

  IRISH JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that recently gentlemen differing politically from the Government have been promoted to be judges in England and Scotland, he can state when the same course will be adopted by the Government in Ireland as that adopted by the Government in England and Scotland in this matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that in each of these three kingdoms the appointments made will be the best in the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: IS it not the fact that there is not a single Nationalist on the Irish judicial bench?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of that fact.

  STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE—FIRST READINGS—THE TEN MINUTES RULE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the statement of the Right Hon. W. H. Smith on the 7th March, 1888, in proposing Standing Order 1G, that it was not intended by the Order to give the Government power to introduce without explanation any Bills of first-rate importance, he will restrict the introduction of measures by Ministers of the Crown under this Order to measures of a non-contentious character.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware it has been the practice to introduce Bills of first-rote importance under this rule, though it may occasionally have occurred. Still less am I aware that when Bills have been introduced under the rule they have been introduced without any explanation. The hon. Gentleman asks me not merely to leave the matter where Mr. Smith left it, but to add new conditions that certainly were never contemplated. I may remind him there is a certain pledge requiring the Government to go through a form that no private Member over goes through, whatever may be the character of the Bill he introduces in the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman adhere to Mr. Smith's pledge?
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: No.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the Member for South Belfast taken the First Lord's place?

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to ask the House to go into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I can give no anticipation at the present moment of the day on which the Civil Service Estimates will be introduced, as we have to do a great deal of financial business before then.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): Will the light hon. Gentleman undertake to give us full notice. My hon. Friend has in the ballot obtained the first place for a motion on going into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates, and wishes to take the opportunity thus afforded him of raising the Irish University question. Irish members are very anxious to have fair notice as to when that question will come on.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will endeavour to give reasonable notice. I suppose the hon. Gentleman does not mean long notice.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: As long as possible. Can we receive a week's notice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not like to give pledges which cannot be fulfilled, but I will endeavour to give a week's notice.

  THE BUDGET.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say when the Budget will be introduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: NO, Sir, I am afraid I am hardly in a position to do that.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Sir Michael Foster, K.C.H., M.D., for the University of London.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Sessional Order has been put down this year exactly in the form in which it has been passed by the House at the beginning of successive sessions. It would, therefore, be an impertinence and only waste of time on my part if I offered any explanation or made any defence of the Order. I beg to move, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the Business of
  104
  Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the Day on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown moved at the commencement of Public Business to be decided without Amendment or Debate; and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall be extended to Friday. Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, on which, the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply without Question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker so left the Chair under Standing Order No. 56, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account, the Business of Supply standing first Order on every such day. Provided always, that on Motion made after Notice by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time,, not exceeding throe days, maybe allotted for the Business of Supply, either before or after the 5th of August. On the last but one of the allotted days, at Ten o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every Question; necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the last, not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days, the Speaker shall, at Ten o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply. On the days appointed for concluding the Business of Supply, the consideration of such business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17;. nor may any dilatory Motion he moved on such proceedings: nor shall they be interrupted, under the provisions of any Standing I Order relating to the Sittings of the House. Provided always that any Additional Estimate for any new service or matter, not included in the original Estimates for the year, shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on any day not later than two days before the Committee is closed. Provided also that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days. Provided also that two Morning Sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one Three o'clock Sitting."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. DUNCOMBE (): I had hoped when this Sessional Order was proposed to move an Amendment which would enable us at any rate to discuss a proposal which f have every reason to believe would meet with a large amount of support on both sides of the House, but I understand that any Amendment which would alter a Standing Order already in existence would not be in order on this occasion. That being so, of course I am precluded from moving my Amendment, but I would suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury an alternative proposal which I think would improve both the efficacy and the popularity of the Standing Order, and which would not alter the existing days as they nowstand or require the alteration by a single word of any Standing Order. My suggestion would not interfere with any existing arrangements or any arrangements that have been, or are about to be made, on the basis of existing arrangements. It is that there should be added to the first paragraph of the Order some such provision as this: "And that on those Fridays the House do meet at 11 o'clock a.m., and rise at 6 o'clock p.m." That would not in any way exceed the provisions of any Standing Order, because the House expressly reserves to itself the right of deciding at what hours it should meet and rise. There is reason to believe that Members on both sides of the House, and of all shades of opinion, feel that there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion contained in my Amendment. An early rising on Friday would meet the convenience of those hon. Members whose professional and business engagements and business habitude lend to their views on questions which come before the House a weight which this House cannot afford to lose. It would tend to induce such hon. Members to give up a certain portion of their valuable time to attend the House, and would specially suit hon. Members who represent constituencies in the extreme west and north of England, in Wales, and in the kingdoms of Ireland and Scotland. I think such a proposition as this is well worthy of the careful attention of the First Lord of the Treasury. I quite admit that there are some hon. Members of weight who have an objection to the alteration suggested, but I think I should not be out of harmony with the general feelings of the House if I propose, at a convenient and proper
  106
  time, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he, on his own behalf and that of his colleagues, would agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question. But for the present I content myself with suggesting to him, and to the House generally—for after all this is a matter which concerns no one but the Members of the House—whether a Sessional Order in the direction I have pointed out would not bring Parliament more into the position of a businesslike assembly of a business nation. I beg to move.
  MR. BROADHURST (): On more than one occasion, since I have been a Member of this House, I have voted for a motion to turn Wednesdays into Fridays and Fridays into Wednesdays, and I have great pleasure in taking this opportunity of seconding the Amendment of my hon. friend opposite—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): I rise to a point of order. In as much as the first Standing Order says—
  "That unless the House otherwise order, the House should meet every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday at three o'clock"—
  I ask you whether an Amendment which would involve an alteration of that Standing Order is in order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Order says, "unless the House otherwise order." If the hon. Member had intended to alter the time of the sitting of the House on Monday, Tuesday, or Thursday his Amendment would not have been in order, but as the resolution deals with Fridays I think it is competent for the hon. Member to move his Amendment for altering the hours of sitting upon such Fridays. At the same time I think I ought to say that it is very inconvenient to spring an Amendment which affects a Standing Order suddenly upon the House without any notice whatever.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I regret most extremely that I should have sprung this Amendment on the House, but I fail to see what other course I could take.
  MR. BROADHURST: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that we should on Friday meet at an earlier hour. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to think that it is something out of order and inconvenient

  107
  to do so. I differ. On occasions during the session an order is made for the House to meet at ten, eleven, or twelve; and clearly it is within the power of the House itself to make this suggestion subject to the approval of the Government or the Leader of the House. I do beg the House to consider this question on its merits, and to have regard to the enormous convenience it would be to a great number of Members of the House to meet once a week at eleven in the morning. There are a great number of legal gentlemen who have to attend the courts, and gentlemen in other professions to whom eleven o'clock in the day may be considered an inconvenient hour; but if we met for Supply only once a week at eleven I do not think those Members of the House so engaged could reasonably find fault. And, indeed, so far as my observation of the attendance at the House is concerned, I think the learned profession, as a rule, mark down Supply days for leave of absence on a very large scale; and therefore it would be no great inconvenience to them, while it would be a great convenience to other Members of the House. I have taken an active part ever since I entered the House in trying for some re-form in the hours and seasons of sitting, and it is only on an occasion of this kind that one has an opportunity of submitting a plea for consideration. I do not suppose my Hon, friend desires to go to a division on the suggestion, or to prolong the discussion; but if the First Lord of the Treasury would give a serious promise that he will go into the matter with a view of meeting this demand, I am sure it would meet with the almost universal approval of the Members of the House. Last session I submitted to him some considerations for the alterations of the period and meeting of Parliament in order that we should avoid sitting here in July and August. This suggestion does not encounter the same difficulties as that one; it is a suggestion reasonable, rational, practical, and wise, and one which, as it seems to me, ought to commend itself to both sides of the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  In line 17, after the word "August," to insert the words "and on such allotted Fridays the House shall meet at 11 a.m. and sit till 6 p.m."—(Mr. Buncombe.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only rise to intervene at the present moment because I gathered from you, Mr. Speaker, that, in your judgment, this debate,, though in order, is not very opportune, and the very few words I shall say may limit its scope. In reference to my hon. friend's Amendment, it is sufficient to point out that it is impossible for me to accept it; and for two-reasons, both of which I regard as conclusive. The first is that I do not think it possible so to alter the rules of the House as to require the attendance at two-morning sittings during the week of the very large number of professional gentlemen who have other important avocations to pursue. The second reason is that it would still further curtail the time of the House given to Supply, and I doubt whether the House is anxious that such time so given to Supply on the allotted Fridays should be further diminished. While saying that, I entirely agree with my hon. friend the Member for Egremont and the hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a large body of feeling in the House, pointing in the direction of some investigation into the allocation of our time. It would be most improper for me at the present moment to give the pros and cons which may be urged to the various proposals brought under my notice, but I may be allowed to say two-things. One is that I do not know any circumstance in relation to this matter on which the Government should exercise any pressure it may have in its power. It is absolutely a question for hon. Members themselves to decide. The second is that in order that hon. Members may have materials for a sound decision there' should be a preliminary investigation into-a question so bound up with their own comfort. Should that view meet with general acceptance I will take care that a Select Committee shall be appointed for the purpose.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (): I think the House generally will be extremely pleased with the statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. Still I should like to reply to some of the arguments he has used. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would largely interfere with and make-demands on the time of business men to-have two morning sittings, land that such a change would diminish the actual time

  109
  allotted to Supply. With regard to the first objection, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that his observation does not apply to all professional men, but only to one profession—a most important one it is true—the legal profession; and I really think it is rather unfair that the health, time, and interests of every other Member of this House should be sacrificed to the interests of one particular profession. No doubt it will be said that morning sittings on Fridays will interfere with the convenience of business men, but I would point out that the answer to that is obvious. After all, there are in this House business men other than those who represent London; business men from Scotland, Ireland, and the provinces, who have to reside in London during the Parliamentary session, and when it is said that a morning sitting interferes with the convenience of business men the statement should be properly analysed and considered, and it would then be found that it would only interfere with the convenience of a very small section. With regard to the other argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that this Amendment, if carried, would still further diminish the time allotted to Supply, so far as the actual number of hours is concerned the argument is just and well founded. But there are hours and hours. For instance, the hours from four to six, which, though extremely interesting to hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentleman on both front benches, do not facilitate Supply: and there is the dinner hour, during which arguments are addressed to empty benches. During the dinner hour, though in session, the House almost ceases to exist. It is true that during that time hon. Gentlemen address their constituents through the medium of the gentlemen of the Press Gallery, but so far as the main body of the Mouse is concerned the House does not exist for three hours after. The result is that we have hon. Gentleman coming down later who, not having heard what has taken place, with charming freshness repeat all the arguments which we have already heard. This House has all the characteristics of the spendthrift, now avariciously now—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I would remind the hon. Member of the limited nature of the Amendment. The question is that the House shall sit on
  110
  the allotted Fridays from 11 a. m. to 6 p.m.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: With regard to the proposal itself, it was at first supposed that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite proposed to substitute Friday for Wednesday, and no doubt if that had been the proposal of the hon. Gentleman it would have met with a certain amount of opposition; but his suggestion is that the Wednesday sitting should remain as it is, and that instead of having a long night sitting on Friday we should have a short day sitting. I think that proposition recommends itself to all private Members, and ought to recommend itself to all official Members of the House. How can we ask those gentlemen to discharge their duties properly if they are compelled to be here from three o'clock to twelve every night? Now that the country is thinking of setting its house in order, I think one of the first necessities is to relieve members of the Government from the long hours which they are obliged to spend in this House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): I am not now going to enter into the arguments raised by the hon. Member, but I would recall the House to the suggestion thrown out by the Leader of the House, that this matter should be considered by a Select Committee. I presume the right hon. Gentleman means that the Committee shall consider not only the question raised by the Amendment, but the general hours of the sittings of the House. I do not think you can consider the one without considering the other. I am very glad to know that a Committee is going to inquire into this matter, because I am not at all sure that our hours of sitting are at all satisfactory. Every man in the House looks upon this question from the point of view of his own personal convenience, and this proposal comes from, and those who raise the question are, gentlemen who wish to got away from town at the end of the week for the purposes either of business or pleasure; who wish to got out of London without waiting for the Saturday trains. They are very worthy persons, no doubt, but I do not think they include among their ranks the hardest working Members of the House. Therefore I am afraid if we come to the constitution of a Committee to inquire into our hours of

  111
  sitting we shall have to consider in each individual case to which category of members the candidate belongs. I remember a noble Lord, still happily alive, long a Member of this House, saying that it you would tell him the names of the members forming a Committee he would write the Report in each case. In this case I would almost undertake if I saw and analysed the names of the members of this proposed Committee to say on which side their judgment would be cast. I think our hours at present—and I do not think they are satisfactory as at present arranged—do not attract the approval and admiration of the world at large. We are accustomed to them, and therefore the yoke fits our shoulders, but the world at large is astonished. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks anything would be done by appointing a Committee I would welcome its appointment. I certainly think that an inquiry by Committee should precede any action this House might take for the alteration of the hours of sitting.
  *SIR SAMUEL HOARE (): I have no desire to prolong tins discussion, but I should like just to say a few words for myself and other hon. Members who are opposed to any change. My hon. friend who proposed the Amendment before the House hoped to propose a still greater change, but that was ruled out of order. I am very much afraid that if we once begin to change our hours and days of meeting we shall get into difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that every Member looked at this question from the point of view of his own personal convenience; when the House arrives at a decision upon this matter I hope it will consider the officials and the Government and those who are obliged to attend. Another point that I would like to suggest is that it would lead to those Members who sit on Private Bill Committees and sit every day frequently having to interrupt their sittings at most inconvenient times. I can say from experience that when you are busy on some important matter it is extremely inconvenient to have to leave your work to take part in divisions. My right hon. friend the Leader of the House has intimated that he will grant a Committee to consider our Standing Orders. Now I confess that while
  112
  I thank him for anything he does for the convenience of the House, I do not very much welcome the appointment of a Committee to consider our Standing Orders. I have gone through all the reports of the five Committees that have sat since 1837, and I find that these Committees have been selected from the leading Parliamentary authorities of the day, and they have gone fully into the various questions which are raised now. I am not prepared to say that they have not made recommendations which the House has accepted, but I am prepared to say that the most important changes in the Standing Orders have been made by the House itself on the initiation of the Government, who have thought some change desirable. If I look at the Reports for 1837 and the Reports for 1848 I find, that some of their most important recommendations have ever since that time been ignored by this House. Therefore, I am inclined to think myself, and I should prefer it, that it would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said he would look fully into the matter, and on a future oscasion propose the changes which he thinks, and which the Government think, will be to the advantage of the House. After all, the responsibility for the conduct of the business of the House must rest with the Government of the day. They have a better knowledge of what is required, and a greater experience than a good many of us as to the best mode of carrying through the business. If a Committee should be appointed I would express the hope that it should be a very strong and a very full one. But first let me read one of the chief recommendations of the Committee of 1848, among whose members were Mr. Denison (Chairman), Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Disraeli. It was one of the most important clauses in their Report—
  "your Committee, however, ventures to express an opinion that the satisfactory conduct and progress of the business of the House must mainly depend on Her Majesty's Government, holding as they do the chief control over its management."
  I think many of us would be content to act upon the recommendation of that Committee; and if my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury thinks it is desirable that there should be a Committee, then I shall watch its progress,

  113
  when formed, with into rest, and with some fear lest, by endeavouring to make changes, we may find in the result that it has not answered. The plan of operations with regard to the Standing Orders is a very good one. The general custom observed in altering them has been for some three or four or five years to move the change in a Sessional Order. That gives the House an opportunity of seeing, year after year, that the proposal of the Government answers, and is useful in assisting the business of the House, and the Sessional Order can then be made a Standing Order. Well, it seems to me that we had much better go on on that system; but whether we do or not. L know that I am speaking for several Members of this House when I express their earnest desire that any tampering with our; Standing Orders should be carried out with the greatest care and the greatest; caution. I believe that the work of this House is being well done at this time, and it should not be for the convenience of one section or another section that we should try an experiment which may end in failure.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): I have no particular interest in this debate, Sir, but I intervene for a few moments simply because, although I have been for some years a Member of this House, I have never spoken on an academic subject before. The hon. Baronet who has just spoken is a great Conservative, and is exceedingly both to interfere with these Standing Orders; but does know that the late hours in this House are an entirely modern institution, and entirely owing to modern usages? The ordinary business time of the House was formerly from ten o'clock till four o'clock but now we appear to be met together for the purpose of consulting the convenience of the few. It is the gentlemen in the City and those who do business on the Stock Exchange, and who come here after the day's work there is done, whose convenience we are now asked to consult. I think that, having regard to the fact that the great majority of the Members of this House give up their business to attend here, and that the business of the nation will be stifled by studying the interests of a few City Members, I must oppose the main resolution.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think it is extremely unfortunate that this motion is brought forward now, as nobody is in the least prepared for it; and, therefore, hon. Members have not given it that consideration which an alteration of the Rules of the House naturally involves. I know that there are hon. Members who consider the Standing Orders proper objects for their ambition at any moment for the purposes of experiment; but there are other Members of this House—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth among them—who are regular Tories in this matter, and who look upon the Standing Orders with veneration, and on the traditions of the House with greater veneration still. I hold that it is impossible to deal at this moment with this resolution, because, in the first place, it affects a part of the whole system of the House. Secondly, I hold that we are not in any way prepared for it. I do not know that my hon. friend who moved the resolution is aware of the amount of time it will take from Supply. As it stands we have twenty days of nine hours a day. This would mean the taking away of two ninths, or more than four days of the time we give to Supply. As regards the argument of my hon. friend opposite, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, I cannot consent to it. I say first of all that we have not too many days now allotted to us—that is, days beginning at three and ending at twelve.
  And if we have not sufficient even now I should say, from the example we had last year, that to reduce the time still further is a very dangerous experiment. If there is to be a change it should not be upon a small proposal like this. Then I say that to appoint a Select Committee to consider only the question of whether the sitting on Friday should be altered from three o'clock to twelve o'clock appears to me a strange proceeding, and I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will withdraw that. The right hon. Gentleman does not answer—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware that my hon. friend was appealing to me, but if he had listened to my speech he would have heard me say that I was quite ready to grant a Committee to discuss the distribution of time of the House as between the various days of the week.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then it only remains to my hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (): Sir, I take exception to the Amendment being withdrawn. The country is not represented in this House by London men only. I happen to belong to a constituency in the country, and I am not at all sorry that the House has begun to consider whether the convenience of the bulk of the Members shall be considered, or merely a section of it. While I am at all times ready to give any suggestion from the First Lord of the Treasury all the weight to which it is entitled, may I point out to him that I have grown up to my present age on the understanding that if there be one way more effective than another of delaying any reform it is referring it to a Select Committee. The First Lord himself has again and again, for the convenience of public business, made larger changes than that proposed to night, and I have voted for those changes. But surely men who come from Scotland, Ireland, and distant parts of England are entitled to some consideration in this matter. Moreover, I do not believe the country approves of business being done after twelve o'clock at night. I have seen the way in which Votes are shot through this House after midnight, and I object entirely to the method. Another consideration is that in far away parts we often have considerable difficulty in obtaining the services as Members of Parliament of the men we should like to have, on account of the difficulty of attending to public duties, the laborious hours, and the inconvenient arrangements which prevail. I can conceive a vast improvement in the arrangements of this House which would make it easier for men of weight and position in the far parts of the country to take part in your deliberations if the hours were somewhat altered. As to the argument of time, I think that has been pretty well disposed of by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division. Between the hours of eleven arid six there are seven hours, all of which would be available for work if you made the provision that no questions or private business should be taken. To compare with that, take a Friday evening under present circum-
  116
  stances. There are questions and all sorts of interruptions. One comes down to take part in the consideration of some item of the Estimates, only to find that seven or eight o'clock arrives before the question comes on, then follows the dinner hour, and after that the small hours, of the morning. I would further point out that the Government put pressure on their own men to avoid discussion on the Estimates. I do not suppose that that fault is confined to the Government of which I am a supporter, but I have again and again come down to the House with the intention of calling attention to some particular Estimate, but have been stopped at the door. I do not believe this proposal will get much support from the occupants of the front benches, as they are wedded to tradition, from which it is exceedingly difficult for them to free themselves. Instead of the question being referred to a Select Committee, I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman put himself in the way of hearing the opinion which is very generally held on both sides of the House as to the desirability of some change, and that, after hearing that opinion, he should endeavour on his own initiative to make the changes which are so much desired.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: Of course the Leader of the House undertakes that the motion for the appointment of the Select Committee should be put down at such a time that we may be able to discuss it?
  MR. DALZIEL (): I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take care that the reference to the Committee shall be wide enough to cover the question of the House meeting half an hour or an hour earlier each day and rising earlier?
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take care that the rights of Irish Members to discuss Irish Estimates are not interfered with? Last session we discussed Irish Estimates only on three occasions; and a great number of Votes were rushed through without any discussion at all.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question does not arise on the motion before the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that when the main question now before the House was introduced for the first time in 1896 it was not the product of any Select Committee but was simply pushed on by the iron hand of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. On the first occasion this resolution came up for discussion Irish Members were told inaccurately what its effect would be; on the second occasion they had not much to find fault with; but on the third and fourth occasions they complained with justice that they had had no opportunity of discussing various Irish Estimates. The rule was framed in such a way as actually to strangle Irish discussion. It had to be remembered that Irish Nationalist Members were always private Members; they took no office, and recognised no official leader on either of the front benches. Therefore, unless they safeguarded their rights they were compromised and trampled on in an unconscionable manner. The way this rule had worked out was that every Vote the discussion of which was objectionable to the Government was pushed back and so was discussion prevented. In 1896 the Irish Members had nothing to complain of, as they had five days in which they were able fairly and properly to discuss every Estimate of importance to Ireland. In 1897, however, there was a complete alteration. The discussion on the Royal Irish Constabulary Vote was prevented, nor had that discussion been allowed since. In that year altogether 17 or 18 millions of money were voted on Irish matters in a couple of hours without discussion. In 1898, matters became even worse. In 1897, the Chief Secretary's salary, at least, was discussed, but in 1898 and 1899 neither that nor the Royal Irish Constabulary Vote was allowed to come up. The only way in which a Government could be brought in touch with the people was by criticism, and the result of this rule had been to destroy criticism of the Irish Estimates by the Irish Members. After all, it was in the hands of the people, and a Government could only act through the power of the people. There were many reasons why Irish Members should have the fullest opportunity for discussing the Estimates, and it would be their duty to intervene in this discussion—though their intervention in foreign questions was not received with gladness—
  118
  having regard to the fact that in one way or another levies would be made upon. Ireland in respect to the expenses of a war which the majority of the people considered unnecessary and unjust.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER ()was unable to agree with the views just expressed. This was not to be a great legislative session, but was rather to be devoted to the prosecution of the war and strengthening the defences of the country. Those matters could only be discussed on the Army and Navy Estimates, and having regard to the state of feeling in the country, he thought the House should have ample time to discuss the Army Votes. A great deal more time should be given to them than had been allotted in former years. That was a point on which both sides would agree, and he thought some modification of the rule might be allowed this session.
  MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)said the rule had one great advantage. In the course of the two preceding sessions two-nights had been spent in long promenades through the lobbies. That was not a dignified performance, and might be put an end to by the judicious use of this rule. He hoped that the time allotted would lie so used as to enable the House to discuss the Estimates fully, but not so as to allow obstruction. In his opinion the Government had not applied the closure sufficiently, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would use the power in his hand to bring the discussion to an early termination.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (Water-ford): I have always regarded #his rule as the most ingenious that was ever framed. Nothing has so facilitated the general business of the House and Government as this rule, and on that point the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on the success of his ingenious plan. But he will at once admit that if this power is not carried out with the most scrupulous care injustice may be done to various sections of the House, like that which was done to the representatives of Ireland. What has happened? In 1897, 1898, and 1899 Votes of the utmost importance to Irish Members were passed over without dis-

  119
  cussion. That was not due to the fault of the Irish Members. During the last three years we have been prevented from discussing at all some of the most important Votes for Ireland. Our case is entirely different from that of England and Scotland. If Scotch Members found that their most important Estimates had been closured without discussion for three years, I think at the end of the third year they would have a conclusive case for asking for a larger amount of time than in previous years. We have received three days for the discussion of the Irish Estimates in each of the last three years, and in view of the fact that many of these Votes have not been discussed for three years, I submit that this year at any rate the Irish Members should be given more than three days. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not think it fair to give five days instead of three for the discussion of the Irish Estimates, and we would be able to utilise these days in discussing those Estimates which have not-been discussed for the last three years. There is one concession I would like to ask of the right hon. Gentleman, and to my mind there will be no difficulty in granting it. This proposal does not preclude the Government from taking other days besides Fridays, and therefore they can take continuous days. It is of importance to the Irish Members that the Irish Votes should, if possible, be taken on consecutive days, as a considerable number of Members come over from Ireland specially for the discussion of the Estimates, and it would be very inconvenient for them to come over one Friday, then go back and have to return on the succeeding Friday. I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury very respectfully to take the Irish Votes on consecutive days, and at such a period of the session as will meet with the views of the Irish Members, and also to give us this year a larger proportion of time for the discussion of the Irish Estimates.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I confess it has always seemed to me that the Irish Members have always had far more than their fair share of the time of the House. They are allowed days of their own for the Irish Estimates, and then they generally come in and assist us with their advice on the Imperial Estimates, which of course they have a perfect right to do.
  120
  If there were to be a fair allocation of the time of the House on any intelligible principle, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would find that they were entitled to far less than they receive.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Closure the Irish Estimates altogether.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am coming to that, although I do not approve of that course. This is the fifth time in which this Sessional Order has been introduced, and every year it is introduced brings us, I am afraid, nearer to the time when perhaps it will be made a Standing Order. In view of that fact I would point out that the effect of this rule is to deprive private Members—the representatives of the Commons as distinguished from the representatives of the Ministers—of all power. This is called the House I of Commons, but it really is in a fair way to become a den of Placemen, on account of the successive steps whereby: all power is taken out of the hands of private Members and put into the hands of the Government. First of all we have got the closure, and I am very far from wishing to see it applied, either to the hon. Gentlemen for Ireland or to the hon. Members on this side of the House. Then we have the practice whereby the House allows the Government every year to take an enormous proportion of the time which by the Standing Orders—the effect of the wisdom of centuries—is allocated to private Members. By Standing Orders three-fifths of the time of the House belongs to private Members, and two-fifths to the Government. The year before last the Government took nine-tenths of the time instead of the four-tenths to which it was entitled. The fault lies with the House altogether. Let the House consider what this Sessional Order amounts to. When I was first introduced to the arts of Parliamentary life by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, whom I really suspect to be the author of this Order, what I found was that absolutely the solo engine and weapon which we as private Members had to meet the Government with was discussion of the Estimates. It was by threatening, I will not say obstructive, but adequate discussion of the Estimates, and by the assertion of our right to debate these Estimates fully, that we were able to get anything out of the Government. I have had many

  121
  things out of the Government, and after consultations behind the Speakers chair I have observed a greater reticence than perhaps I would otherwise have thought fit on the Estimates. When you pass this Order all that power is gone. You give the Government twenty days, and the result is that instead of the Estimates being discussed in the time of the Government, they are discussed in private Members' time. The Government do not care a straw how those twenty days are passed, and if nineteen out of the twenty were given to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—although then I do not suppose they would be satisfied the Government would not mind—for the twentieth day would guillotine everything left and give them all they want. The result is that the private Member is drawing nearer to the time when he will be deprived of almost his last chance of dealing with the Government. In days gone by the debate on the Address was generally finished before the dinner hour; it now takes about ten days, because private Members, having been driven off the Votes in consequence of this Order, come on to the Address. There are three things in this rule, all independent of each other one is good; the other two are lamentably and entirely to be condemned. The allocation of Fridays for Supply is good though even that filches the days of private Members—but the limiting of the number of days to twenty and the limitation of the period to the 5th August are utterly bad. All hard and fast rules are bad in a House like this, because we may be engaged in important duties when the discussion comes to an end. Twenty days did not suffice even last year. We had last year 151 Votes to discuss; the result was that on the 3rd or 4th August the fatal twentieth day—there were rushed through before ten o'clock nineteen Votes involving 2½ millions of money. I say "rushed through," because it was manifestly, impossible at that last hour to discuss the Votes, no matter what their importance. After ten o'clock forty-six Votes, involving £5,100,000, were guillotined, so that on that evening sixty-five Votes out of the whole 151, involving nearly eight! millions of money, were passed, and therefore nearly half the Votes were not discussed at all, but had their heads cut off under the operation of this rule. Among them were some very important Votes, such as the Vote for Uganda, the Vote
  122
  for the Treasury, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Mercantile Marine, and for that Secret Service money which we now know was altogether insufficient and the Vote for which, if not guillotined, might have been increased by the familiar process of moving its reduction. This shows that it is very bad to have a hard and fast rule at all. There should be no limit of twenty days, and the time should not end on the 5th August. I have only risen to say that the repetition of this Sessional Order is the repetition of too successful attempts made in the past on behalf of all Ministers, because when a man becomes a Minister he seems to acquire the habits of his predecessors on the Treasury bench, and is anxious to deprive the private Member of all opportunities and all power, and to take the whole of the time for the Government alone. To that extent I think this is an unfortunate rule. This session we are in special circumstances, but these special circumstances require rather more than less discussion, because in all probability some of the very great Imperial matters in which we are now so anxiously concerned will have to be discussed on the Estimates. Still we are in special circumstances, and I am perfectly certain that Members on both sides of the House will feel inclined to diminish discussion as much as possible, and strengthen the hands of the Government for a vigorous prosecution of the war. I think this Sessional Order is a dangerous thing. I fear it more on the fifth time than I did on the first, because it tends more nearly to become a Standing Order. I trust that a stand may be made against it, and that the Government will make it more elastic by leaving' out the limitation as to the number of days, and also the limit of August the 5th as to time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall reply very briefly to the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, most of them, I am afraid, in a spirit hostile to the rule. My hon. friend who has just sat down made a startling revelation of the methods he was in the habit of adopting in the days before this rule came into force, and he indicated what I confess shocked my innocent mind, that it had been his practice, under threat, I will not say of obstruction, but at all events of able

  123
  and eloquent discussion, to induce the then occupants of the Treasury Bench to make all sorts of surrenders and compromises. He regrets that happy time, and thinks that the privileges of private Members are seriously curtailed because they have now no opportunity of driving these surreptitious bargains behind the Speaker's chair. But I can hardly believe, even if such were the habitual procedure in days gone by, that my hon. friend would seriously desire that those days should be restored. I will point out this to him. He enumerated the number of Votes passed without any discussion under the automatic closure at the end of the session. I think if such transactions as my hon. friend refers to did take place, precisely the same thing occurred in those days, and equally important Votes were passed through with equally marvellous rapidity. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent said the closure was not sufficiently applied during the course of the Estimates last year. The closure is really very imperfect. I always desire to work it in harmony with the general feeling of hon. Gentlemen engaged in the discussion. There are times, no doubt, when it has to be applied, but very often the result of such an operation is to irritate temper and prolong discussion, and so far from turning the stream of the debate into useful and fertilising channels, it turns the discussion into a wrangle in which there is more temper than wisdom shown. I can assure my hon. friend that I am most anxious to see the time of the House allotted as fairly as possible between the different Votes, but it is impossible for that to be done solely on the initiative of any Minister. Only by the co-operation of the House and also by the co-operation of bodies of Members such as the Irish Members with reference to Irish Votes, and the Scotch Members with reference to Scotch Votes, is any satisfactory allocation of time between the Votes in any way possible. Two hon. Gentlemen from Ireland complained of the beggarly allowance of time given to the Irish Estimates, and they complain, as I understand, of the distribution of that time between the Irish Votes. Let me remind hon. Gentlemen that the allocation of time between the Irish Votes is left entirely to the Irish Members. When I am told that this Vote or that was not brought on at a
  124
  convenient time last year on the days allocated to the Irish Votes, I can only reply that it was the fault of the Irish Members themselves. I am always ready to place Votes in the order in which the main body of the critics of the Government are desirous of seeing them. The arrangement of the Votes is not so much for the Government as for the critics of the Government, and if I have been obliged to be the actual person responsible for the arrangement of the Votes I have been always ready to take the advice of hon. Members concerned. The first year this rule was brought in I said I should like to see the order of the Votes and the days on which they were to be taken settled by a Committee, of which, unlike all other Committees, the majority should belong to the Opposition. I frankly admit I still have a strong leaning to that plan; it would relieve me from a very serious and disagreeable responsibility, and I cannot help thinking that it would be found to work well. But I am I well aware that the change is rather contrary to the general spirit of our proceedings, and that there would be difficulty in getting the House to accept it. I think, therefore, the Government have an unanswerable case with reference to the arrangement of the Votes. I now come to the time given to the Votes. It is, of course, open to argument whether the twenty days allocated are sufficient. The twenty days were, if I remember rightly, fixed on after a consideration of the average time taken in previous sessions for Supply. That seems to me to have been a fair arrangement, and my opinion is that the House would be sorry to see the period increased. The time seems to be sufficient, but if the House thinks otherwise I shall not regard it as an infringement of the rule if the number of days is increased; but I should have to get a much stronger expression of opinion in favour of the increase. I do really think that the Irish Members have a very adequate slice of the period allocated for Supply given to them. The hon. Member for Waterford threw out a suggestion that instead of taking Fridays for Irish Votes we should take successive days so far as it was possible. If that be the general view of the Irish Members it is an arrangement which I should be very glad to consider. The hon. Member for Lichfield wished a special exception made this year in favour of the Army Estimates,

  125
  but I would point out to him that we are discussing day after day at the present time Army affairs in a manner which does not trench on the twenty days for Supply, and that a very convenient opportunity is given on the Speaker leaving the chair on the Army Estimates to raise Army questions, and, further, that the elasticity our rules of Supply still possess will be found not insufficient to meet the necessities of the case. These are all the points which have been brought before the House, and I hope we will now proceed to a division.
  MR. STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): The Army Votes this year will require very careful consideration, and I would accordingly move to add the word "two" after the word "twenty" in the Order, so that we may have better opportunity of discussing them. The Under Secre-
  tary for War told the House that we have not had sufficient time in recent years to discuss the Militia or the Volunteer force. If that is so there is all the more reason why we should discuss them this year, and the two extra days which I propose to add would enable us to discuss very important questions dealing with the defence of this country. I beg to move, Sir.
  MR. CHANGING ()seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 8, after the word 'twenty,' to insert the word 'two.'"—(Mr. Strachey.)
  Question put, "That the word ' two' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 136: Noes, 230. (Division List No. 13.)

  AYES.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Allen, William (Gateshead)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. H. Henry

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gurdon, Sir William B.

  O'Malley, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Parnell, John Howard

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pease, J. A. (Northumberland

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Birrell, Augustine

  Hazell, Walter

  Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs, SW

  Blake, Edward

  Holland, William Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joicey, Sir James

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Burt, Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, D nis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Langley, Batty

  Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarsh.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Souttar, Robinson

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Lough, Thomas

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  MacDonnell, Dr MA (Queen's C

  Sullivan, Donald (Westmeath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, K.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Ewan, William

  Trevelyan, Charles Plilips

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Tully, Jasper

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Leod, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Maddison, Fred.

  Walton, Joseph Barnsley)

  Engledew, Charles John

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Watson, Eugene

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorg'n)

  Montague, Sir S.(Whitechapel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Moss, Samuel

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Woods, Samuel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ktrachey and Mr. Courtenay Warner.

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Young, Samuel Cavan, East)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Cap. Sir Alex F.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Archdale, Edw. Mervyn

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh ().

  Field, Admiral Eastbourne)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finch, George H.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Flannery, Sir Fortesene

  M'Killop, James

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffblk)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fry, Lewis

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Middlemore. J. Throgmorton

  Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S. (Hunts

  Gartit, William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Bartley, George C. T.,

  Gedge, Sydney

  Monckton, Edward Philip

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Monk, Charles James

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Bethell, Commander

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Biddulph, Michael

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Bill, Charles

  Gold, Charles

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orine

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brassey, Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Myers, William Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gretton, John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Butcher, John George

  Hall, Right Hon. Sir Charles

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hilsey, Thomas Frederick

  Parkes, Ebeuezer

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Penn, John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh

  Hardy, Laurence

  Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Rich (Lanes Newt'n

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock Bristol

  Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Houston. R. P.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Howard, Joseph

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

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

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Kidley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Jeffreys, A. Frederick

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Kenyon, James

  Round, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Denny, Colonel

  Keswick, William

  Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Knowles, Lees

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Lafone, Alfred

  Rutherford, John

  Dixon-Hartlaud, Sir F. Dixon

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

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

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Drucker, A.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dyke, Kt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  128

  129

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christehurch)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

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

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

  Stanley, Ed. James (Somerset)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wyndham, George

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Strauss, Arthur

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 02. (Division List No. 14.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Allhusen, Angustus Hnry Eden

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gold, Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Goldsworthy, Major-(General

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Arnold-Foster, Hugli O.

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Arrol, Sir William

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

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Cross, Hbt. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gretton, John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Curzon, Viscount

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardign

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  James, Frederic Gorell

  Denny, Colonel

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

  Dikinson, Robert Edmond

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn Robert Wm.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hardy, Lawrence

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Harwood, George

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  Bethell, Commander

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hazell, Walter

  Biddulph, Michael

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Helder, Augustus

  Bill, Charles

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Henderson, Alexander

  Billson, Alfred

  Drucker, A.

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol

  Birrell, Augustine

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Holland, William Henry

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Emmott, Alfred

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Houston, R, P.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Howard, Joseph

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Howell, William Tudor

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Mancr

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Finch, George H.

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Bryee, Rt. Hon. James

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Burt Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Butcher, John George

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Joicey, Sir James

  Caldwell, James

  Flower, Ernest

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Kenyon, James

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

  Fry, Lewis

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

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

  Galloway William Johnson

  Keswick, William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Garfit, William

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Kitson, Sir James

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Knowles, Lees

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lafone, Alfred

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Langley, Batty

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  130

  131

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Ed. H.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Penn, John

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Leng, Sir John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Strauss, Arthur

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pilkington, Rich. (Lancs N'ton)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pilkington, Sir G.A (Lancs. SW

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Tennant, Harold John

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Purvis, Robert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Hasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Ewan, William

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  M'Killop, James

  Richardson, J.(Durham, S.E.)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartle'pl)

  Wallace, Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Ridley, Rt. Hon, Sir Matt. W.

  Wason, Eugene

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

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

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Round, James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Monk, Charles James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham

  Williams, J. Powell (B'ghm.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carm'rthen

  Rutherford, John

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E.J.

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

  Moss, Samuel

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R (Bath

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Murray, Col. Wyndharn (Bath)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyndham, George

  Myers, William Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  NOES.

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

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Price, Robert John

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Blake, Edward

  Kearley, Hudson K.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Burns, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Edward

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacDonnell, Dr MA (Queen's C

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

  Clark, Dr. G. B

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tully, Jasper

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Cress, Alexander (Glasgow)

  M'Leod, John

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

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Woods, Samuel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Courtenay Warner.

  Engledew Charles John

  O'Malley, William

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Parnell, John Howard

  Ordered, That so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the Business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the Day on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown moved at the commencement of Public Business to be decided without Amendment or Debate; and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall be extended to Friday.
  Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, on which the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply without Question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker so left the Chair under Standing Order No. 56, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account, the Business of Supply standing first Order on every such day.
  Provided always, that on Motion made after Notice by a Minister of the Crown to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the Business of Supply, either before or after the 5th of August.
  On the last but one of the allotted days, at Ten o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the last, not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days, the Speaker shall, at Ten o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply.
  On the days appointed for concluding the Business of Supply, the consideration of such business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17; nor may any dilatory Motion be moved on such proceedings; nor shall they be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  Provided always that any Additional Estimate for any new service or matter, not included in the original Estimates for the year, shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on any day not later than two days before the Committee is closed.
  Provided also that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a, previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days. Provided also that two Morning Sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one Three o'clock Sitting.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (REPORTS OF MONEY COMMITTEES).
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, and other Committees authorising the expenditure of Public Money, may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill relating to Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland. This is practically the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading last session, when it was introduced by the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn. The Bill has been redrafted, and we have given effect, as far as possible, to the suggestions made on that occasion.
  Bill to amend the Law regarding Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland, ordered to be brought by the Lord Advocate.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law regarding Eccle siastical Assessments in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

    NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a further number of Land Forces,

    135
    not exceeding 120,000, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
    *MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): It will be in the recollection of most hon. Members that during the last session of this House in October I took the opportunity of opposing the Vote of ten millions for the prosecution of the ' war. I did everything in my power to oppose the prosecution of the war, believing it to lie unnecessary and utterly unjust. In continuation of the protest I made last session, I now rise to offer opposition to the Vote which is before the House to increase the Army by 120,000 men and give £13,000,000 more to prosecute this war. I have reason to know that the action of hon. Members who oppose the war has created a great deal of displeasure both in this House, and in the country. English Members i who have opposed the war have in some instances been offered actual violence when addressing public meetings in this country. In Ireland it is different: there we have the support of our constituents; but we who represent Ireland have during the Parliamentary session to live in: England, and I may say there is not a post delivered in this House which does not bring to me and other Members numbers of letters reviling us in the most virulent terms because we have the common courage to state here that which we know expresses the feelings of our constituencies. Mr. Lowther, no amount of intimidation of this character will prevent me from honestly saying that which I feel is right, and what I should be a coward not to say. Hon. Members representing Unionist constituencies have sometimes quoted speeches made by me in Ireland in connection with this war. I am prepared to repeat here every sentence of the speeches I made in Ireland on the subject. It is not because we are confronted with the representatives of the British people that we would abate our tone in the slightest degree, or one sentence of our sympathies with regard to this war. Whatever you may think of our sympathies, treasonable and disloyal as you regard them, scandalous as you may regard our views of an
    136
    Imperialism which has cost so much blood and treasure, you must admit that we have the courage of our opinions, and that with our voices and by our votes we are to oppose every step which is taken to prosecute this war. I cannot regard with admiration, or even common respect, the attitude of the great bulk of the Liberal party in regard to this war. With a few brilliant exceptions the Liberal party has funked the whole matter. Speeches have been made stating that the war is unjust, cruel, and not warranted by circumstances. It has been denounced in all the moods and tenses, but when it comes to the point of voting millions of the hard-earned money of the taxpayers there will not be half a dozen Liberal Members with sufficient courage to walk into the lobby against the Vote. Yesterday a meeting was held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, and a number of resolutions were passed; by the first, it was solemnly declared that this war was a crime and a blunder; by the last of a long string of resolutions, unbounded confidence was expressed in the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the party generally. What does it mean? To a plain man it is extraordinary to find great politicians in a party of this country stating in one breath that the war is a crime, and in the next voting-millions of money for its prosecution. The argument seems to be that this war is unjust, but it is to the advantage of England to prosecute it to a conclusion. However unjust, however criminal, it is necessary for the honour of the country, the glory and the good name of England, that the war should be prosecuted for many more months to come, with untold shedding of blood and spending of treasure. I say that every additional day, week, and month the war lasts is calculated to bring greater dishonour, shame, and loss of glory to England. If the people had any regard for their good name, and desired to do that which would cause every people in the world to respect England, they would say there was a mistake made in commencing this war, and the best way we can repair that mistake is to admit that it was made and withdraw from this proceeding, and acknowledge before the world the error of judgment which led us into it, and give the people of South Africa that independence for which they are prepared to lay down their lives. Then all the world will say

    137
    when England made a mistake she had the courage to acknowledge it—a great deal more courage is often shown by acknowledging an error than the prosecution of a war. We hear about the disaster of Majuba. I was one of those who rejoiced at it, but even we could not restrain from paying a tribute of admiration to the action of Mr. Gladstone, and the then Liberal Administration which had the courage to face the fanaticism of the Tory jingo Imperialists of the country and make peace with the Transvaal, giving back to the Dutch people in South Africa the right to govern their own country, because it was the right thing to do. And nothing has redounded more to the honour of England throughout the world than the policy of Majuba. I listened to the speech of the man whose conduct has at least filled every generous-minded Irishman with admiration, the late Member for Plymouth, Sir Edward Clarke, a strong Unionist, who had the courage of his opinions, and who vacated his seat in Parliament, but who by so doing has gained the respect of every politician in the world. I should like to see some Liberal statesman exhibit some of the spirit and manliness of Sir Edward Clarke, but they think it is better not to take a course which may cause their constituents to call upon them to resign. Although the big battalions behind the Government were compelled to go into the lobby against him, the House is obliged to admit that the balance of argument was with Sir Edward. The most remarkable part of this discussion appears to me to be the complete change of front on the part of the Government.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question the hon. Member is now going into is not relevant to the question before the Committee. The policy which led up to the war cannot be discussed; only the policy of continuing it.
    *MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I will go no further than to say that all last session we were told of specific grievances, and now the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary says that the war has not been brought about by any specific penny of Imperial money is to be given to grievance, but is the consequence of old, relieve, and when we shall be asked to strained relations, existing even before 1881. That is a complete change of front
    138
    It is said that the object of the war is to make peace. Are the Government sanguine enough to believe that after months, and perhaps years, of bloodshed in South Africa, after thousands of homes in South Africa have been rendered desolate and miserable, that the Dutch and English will sit side by side in friendship and amity. Where is there an historical parallel in the world which goes to prove that a bloody campaign of this kind tends to the peace of two races? I was reading a short time ago a speech of one of the greatest statesmen of his age, Edmund Burke. He was speaking on the American War, and he used these remarkable words, which are, I venture to think, applicable to this war—
    "Force alone is but temporary, and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered.'
    You have been using force against the Boers for the whole of the century, and the result is that so far from there being peace, the lines of separation are wider than ever. It is no use to sanction the increase of 120,000 men to the Army without dealing with the cost, and we shall be asked to sanction a Vote of £13,000,000. £23,000,000 has already been spent on this horrible campaign. From an Irish point of view can anybody complain if we raise our voices to protest against this enormous expenditure when we see the dire necessity in our own country for the expenditure of capital, and if we view with dismay and indignation the initiation of a policy which denies Ireland everything she wants, and lavishes on what we believe to be an unjust war such expenditure. I am glad that I am not an English Radical Member to be compelled to sit silently on these benches and vote million after million, when the House knows perfectly well that that money should be devoted to matters of greater and more urgent importance in the interest of the masses. I am not going to enter into any alternative schemes in regard to this matter; but when we have, as we have at this time, a famine in India resulting in 4,000,000 of the Indian subjects of Her Majesty suffering all the horrors of misery and starvation, and which I am told not a penny of Imperial money is to be given to relieve, and when we shall be asked tomorrow to vote £13,000,000 to drive to their last rest 100,000 men in South Africa

    139
    whose only crime is their love for their country, I say it is a scandal and a disgrace. I venture to predict that England will never be secure until she learns the lesson that other peoples have the same spirit of patriotism and national pride which they themselves possess, and that they should also be allowed to live and be proud of their country. I served on the Committee on Old Age Pensions last year, and everybody who has studied this question knows that the one great difficulty, and the one argument that could be adduced against establishment of old age pensions in this country—for the relief of aged working men who can no longer toil—was that the necessary funds could not be found, that the money was not available, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer could be found who would give it. That being the only argument against a measure which, in principle, received the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, I say here, Sir, that I thank God I am not a Radical or a Liberal Member of Parliament to sit silently in this House and vote millions of money for this unjust war; while relief is denied which might sweeten the old age of working men whose right arms are no longer strong, and who are suffered to drag their weary limbs through the streets of this land, in absolute misery and want to the end of their days, or beg their way to the workhouse. I do not know what the immediate result of this war will be. I do know that great enthusiasm exists throughout the country in regard to it; and whether inside or outside this House, the general cry seems to be, "Hang the expense!" "Send out the money," say they. "The great thing to do is to plant the Union Jack in Pretoria." That is the prevailing sentiment of the day. Ah, but a revulsion of feeling will yet succeed this frenzied cry for war, as sure as I am standing here to-night. It may be later, it may come soon; but sooner or later the time will come when not only the Government, who are responsible for this extravagant expenditure of blood and treasure, but every man in this House who gives his vote to this resolution will be called to account by the country and his constituents. You will be asked why you sanctioned this expenditure, when at the same time you offered no relief to your starving fellow-subjects in India, and made no provision for the
    140
    old age of your kith and kin in England,, Scotland, and Ireland. You are aiding. in prosecuting a war which no one can say will under any circumstances bring; glory to England. One hundred and twenty thousand men are being asked for in this Vote. I wonder if it has ever occurred to the people of this country what a great disparity there exists between the forces now opposed to each other in South Africa. I wonder if the outside public realise that at the present time there is in South Africa in the uniform of the Queen and under the command of Lord Roberts an army of soldiers-under arms larger in number than the whole Boer population—men, women and. children—in the Transvaal and Orange Free State combined. I give the figures. Figures, like all statistics, may vary to some extent, but I say that nobody who has inquired into the statistics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, or who has secured his information on the spot can deny that approximately the figures I have given are correct. Excluding the Uitlanders and the people of British blood in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, there are 180,000 Boers, men, women,, and children, in those two small provinces. I have heard it said by one authority that there are 10,000 more, and by another that there are 10,000 less; but I have never heard it stated by anyone speaking with authority that there are, even on the widest estimate,, more than 200,000 men, women, and children in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Accordingly with your 200,000 men you have a soldier with a weapon in his hand for every man, woman, and child in the two Republics you are invading. And yet we are now asked to-vote for 120,000 more men. I have not yet heard it explained by the Under Secretary of State for War what is to be-done in the way of garrisoning South Africa when the war is brought to a close. After you have planted the Union Jack in Pretoria you will require 100,000 men to permanently garrison South Africa,, and they will have to be maintained there a longer time than you would care to prophesy on the occasion of this Vote. The rural population of the whole of these vast territories is almost entirely Dutch, and to guarantee peace you must make your garrisons strong; enough, and I say therefore to prevent

    141
    the outbreak of a revolution you must permanently lock up your 100,000 men there, and that will inevitably force you into a scheme for conscription. The proposed new Army scheme is neither voluntaryism nor conscription; it is a sort of half-hearted steering between the two, but it cannot possibly work, and in the end, as I have said, the country will be driven to adopt conscription. But will they do it? I say it will be impossible for nine-tenths of the Volunteers and the young men of this country to give up their employment and go under canvas for one month; their employers could not sanction it; it would derange the whole commercial life of the country. I say that when this war has passed away, and when the people see things in their proper colours—at present they can see nothing but khaki colour, an extremely unpleasant colour, in my opinion—it will be found that this little war in South Africa has landed the country into an expenditure of what in the end will be 100 millions. We hear a great deal just now about the way in which the colonies have supported the mother country, and no doubt the colonists have warmly responded to the call. The principal reason for that, I take it, is that you gave them the Home Rule which you won't give us in Ireland. Be that us it may, the colonists have supplied you with quite a number of men; but I know them intimately, and I venture to say that the colonies will not give you one single penny piece towards the future extra cost of your increased regular Army. If, then, you are going to increase your standing Army, and to depart from the old British principle of a small standing Army, with a, goodly complement of Volunteers, I would ask you who is going to bear the increased cost? It will have to be borne solely by the people of this country. Sir, it seems to me that this war inaugurates a sad and serious era in the history of England. It is an era of unjust and unnecessary warfare waged against a small Christian country. It is leading us into a policy of maintaining a huge standing army, which is the beginning of a ruinous system of militarism—a system that is already sapping the life's blood of the Continent. What is to be gained by it? Supposing you disarm every Dutchman in the Transvaal to-morrow, what better off will you be? You would have the territory, it is true;
    142
    but God Almighty knows that this Empire has territory enough already. If this war is to be continued, in the name of common honesty let the mask of hypocrisy be torn from the face of those who are prosecuting it, and let the people see their mistake, that it is not a conflict in the cause of right or of good government, but in the furtherance of a policy of aggrandisement and land-grabbing. An hon. Member asked the other day—
    "How can the Boers in the end expect to withstand the force of the British arms? Where are they to turn for help? Germany won't help them. America is too far away."
    Ay, it was a sad, a miserable day for the Boers that their country was not nearer to America. Had it been otherwise the wings of the American Eagle—that glorious emblem of liberty and equality—would have sheltered them in this time of stress and trial. As my hon. friend said, however, they can put their trust in God. Most sincerely do I believe, Sir, that the defeats and disasters which have overtaken the British forces hitherto have not been due to want of pluck and courage on the part of the men, or for want of gallant leadership by their officers. I solemnly avow my firm conviction that they are due to the interposition of Heaven because the war is unjust. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary wound up his speech last session by a quotation from Shakespeare, saying, with a jaunty air, as though the battle was won, that his quarrel was just. That was one of the wise sayings of William Shakespeare, but it applied not to your cause but to that of the Boors, for of them it may be said with perfect truth—
    "Thrice is he arm'd that hath his quarrel just;
    And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel.
    Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted."
    *COLONEL LONG (): I have listened attentively to the eloquent speech which has just been delivered, but the whole of the argument stands or falls by the point whether or not this war is a just one. As the great bulk of my countrymen, after due consideration of the whole matter, have come

    143
    to the conclusion that it is a just war, I do not propose to follow the hon. Member along the well worn path of argument which has already been so often trod in this House. Rather will I take the humbler part of asking the Under Secretary for War for a little further information and light. It appears to me that the lines upon which the Government have brought forward the proposed scheme are, perhaps, the only lines upon which they could act at present. But whether the proposals will produce a real and effective force, or whether they will prove abortive, depends entirely upon how they are carried out, and the steps that are taken with details. Therefore, without desiring the Under Secretary for War to go into all the petty detail, I would ask him in certain directions to fill in a little more the somewhat slight sketch with which ho has favoured the committee. When the great war was going on between North and South America both sides organised army after army, and rapidly turned large numbers of men into good fighting material. The problem which was then solved by the Northern States, appears to me to be the problem at present before this country. There is something extremely tangible in the proposals of the Government to raise a certain number of extra battalions and the long wished for artillery, for the regular forces of this country. But under ordinary circumstances it would undoubtedly take eighteen months or two years for those forces to become really effective and available. How do the Government propose to accelerate the bringing of these new men to an effective condition? If it is to be done rapidly, it is evident the ordinary routine of passing a man from the recruit stage to that of a regular soldier must be entirely altered. Setting up drill, general smartness, precision of parade movements are all most desirable in an army, but they are not really necessary for the actual matter of fighting, whereas shooting, skirmishing, the art of entrenching and making cover, and outpost duty are absolutely vital in modern war. Therefore, if these various units are to be brought together rapidly, it is evident that every single moment which, without over-working the men, can be devoted to instruction must be given, not to the merely ornamental portions of soldiering, but to the vital necessities of the fighting line. It may be said
    144
    that this is the mere ABC, and will, of course, be attended to. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that any officer who finds himself in command of any of these units, whether they be battalions or batteries, and sets aside tradition and proceeds to devote himself simply to the essentials of the fighting line, will risk his professional reputation and run the chance of professional ruin if he happens to be inspected by an old-fashioned officer who still retains the old tradition about this and that being necessary. The only safeguard will be clear and distinct orders issued from headquarters. I would ask whether the Horse Guards really recognise this condition of affairs, and are prepared to issue definite orders as to the instruction to be given to these new units. As to the proposals in reference to the Militia and the Volunteers, they are only semi-tangible. The whole of the remaining battalions of Militia are to be called out and placed in camps. In our country there are only about six months during which men can be instructed in camp, and many of the Militia regiments are certainly not up to strength. Therefore the proposals, as far as the Militia are concerned, rest on a series of "ifs." No doubt these battalions in camp will, m the course of five or six months, form a very excellent fighting body if sufficient recruits arc forthcoming to make them up to full strength, if that body of recruits are forthcoming during the next couple of months so as to enable them to go through a course of instruction in the summer months, and if a course of instruction in the real essential points of the fighting line is carefully laid down and followed. On those three "ifs" rests the probability of the Militia proposals resulting in a really effective force either for home defence or for South Africa. I should like the Under Secretary for War to tell us whether these things will be carried out. The War Office have no doubt about their ability to get recruits, but I have not come across anybody else who takes quite the same view. Moreover, the very figures given us by the Under Secretary of State for War during the debate bear out the idea that although in the course of time the numbers may be forthcoming, they will not be available in time for a complete course of instruction during the coming summer, because the Under Secretary for

    145
    War reckoned to be able to get men at the rate of 3,000 per month. From the fact of starting below strength, combined with the drain that will take place on the Militia, we shall probably require from 21,000 to 30,000 men to bring the battalions up to full strength. That means that with a recruiting power of 3,000 per month, seven or ten months must elapse before the battalions are in full force. We should not, therefore, in all probability, in the course of this year be able to get our Militia battalions thoroughly effective. Under these circumstances I would ask whether the Government would be prepared, if they find they are not getting sufficient recruits, to fix a period at which they would have recourse to other means, namely, the ballot. I know the Government objects to any compulsion. But, in the first place, the Ballot Act is very different from conscription; secondly, wherever I have gone during the last month or so in my own constituency I have found all classes alike—shopkeepers, fanners, and labourers—recognising the necessity of there being in the future some means whereby the requisite men can be raised for the defence of the country; and lastly, the Ballot Act has undoubtedly been retained in order that in a case of great national emergency there should be some means of obtaining men promptly. Surely now, when our military resources are strained to the utmost degree now, when it is quite possible that within a few weeks we shall hear of the surrender of 10,000 of the very flower of the English Army, now is a moment of emergency. Will the Government undertake, if the necessary recruits are not forthcoming within some given period—I should like to say by the end of April—to bring the Ballot Act into force? If the Government were prepared to take any such action, they of course would have, in the intervening time, to take steps to make the Act available (it being at present suspended) and the machineiy workable. With regard to the Volunteers, I understand the proposal to be that corps should lie asked to go into camp, if possible, for a month. Under the peculiar circumstances of the moment it is possible that some battalions, at great personal sacrifice to many of the men and to many employers, may go to these camps. But the idea is entirely antagonistic to all the conditions of the Volunteer force, and there must
    146
    be many battalions who would very much I like to accept the invitation, but will not be able to do so. There is one thing I should like to direct attention to in this connection. Now that recruiting for the Volunteers is thrown open, vast numbers of individuals will come forward and join—men with a certain amount of leisure, and who can afford to give the time. I should like to ask whether arrangements will be made whereby such men can go through a complete and thorough course at these camps, no matter to what corps they belong. Such an arrangement would no doubt result in great efficiency. I would further ask whether it would not be possible that some of those town corps which cannot go to the big central camps might lie allowed and assisted to form camps close to their local ranges, so that the men would be able to go to their work during the day, and in the early mornings and the evenings to do much excellent work, both in learning to shoot and in going through the necessary drills. This has in the past been successful in some cases. My last point is about the standing camps. I shall be very glad to be told that there will be at all events two or three organised, not merely as camps of instruction,, but as real military camps of not less than divisional equipment—that they will be provided with the whole proper staff' of a division, medical staff, commissariat and transport, so that they will each be able at the end of six or seven months to turn out a division capable either of going to a point in England for home defence, or, if necessary, as a corporate body to South Africa to continue the war. I think if the Under Secretary for War, without going into too much detail, will throw a little more light on the general scheme, he will relieve a great deal of the anxiety at present felt by many people throughout the country, and who, like myself, cannot really, as the scheme stands, feel very much confidence as to its ultimate success.
    LIEUT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES (): I have listened to nearly the whole of the debate, and have noticed that very few Members have referred in detail to the Volunteer force of the country. It is proposed to invite tee Volunteers to camp for one month.

    147
    I do not like that invitation at all, because I am satisfied that the Volunteer forces throughout the country will not be able to respond to it. The Government are not treating the Volunteers in the right spirit. At the present time the Volunteers are expected to go to camp for one week during the year. It is generally admitted that those camps are anything but successful, because, taking a battalion of 1,000 men, only half the battalion are in camp for, say, three days, and the other half for the remaining three days. The whole battalion, therefore, is not together for more than one day, on the average, during the training. Accordingly, to ask the Volunteer force throughout the country to respond from patriotism to the extent of one month when they cannot do it for one week, is certainly unfair and not right. [An HON. MEMBER: Where does the patriotism come in?] I will tell the hon. Member where the patriotism comes in presently. I do not suppose that five per cent., or ten per cent, at the outside, of the battalions of Volunteers will respond to this invitation, but I will assume that ten per cent, do so. What will be the result? It will be impossible even for that very small percentage to be in camp for a month and to do work efficiently as soldiers, for the very same reason that the Volunteers throughout the country cannot do it for the shorter period of one week. It is impossible for some members of even the most efficient battalions in the country to give a month for their country's service. Take the concrete case of a clerk earning 25s. per week. That man may be worked up to concert pitch for the honour of his corps, and in his patriotism responds on behalf of his battalion. He goes to camp for one month, everything is found for him—although the allowance in the past has not been sufficient.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Do you know that from experience?
    LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: No, but—
    MR. BROADHURST ()He is not a Volunteer, evidently.
    LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: Yes, I am. At the end of the month this man goes homo, and what is his position? During that time he has been without his wages, and his family have had to suffer. Is it reasonable for this, the richest country in the whole world, to expect that from a man who cannot do it without stinting his family? Therefore, to give this invitation to the Volunteers is like asking a man to dinner when you know very well that he is going to refuse. What will be the effect? Members of Volunteer battalions who do not respond to this invitation will not be thought much of, and it will be supposed that while they could do a week's camping, as a sort of picnic, they refused to go to camp for a month when their country invited them. Such a state of things will have a very serious effect upon the Volunteer force in the future. It may be said that the employers of labour ought to pay the wages of these patriotic men. But I do not think that that is right. Why should an employer who perhaps has a number of Volunteers in his employ make this sacrifice? For these reasons I do not hail with satisfaction the proposals of the Government in this respect. I hope that in the course of next week we may have some promise from the Government that the ordinary capitation grant may be increased irrespective of whether or not the Volunteers respond to this invitation for one month's training.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I said that in my speech.
    LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: But we do not know exactly to what extent. I hope the grant will be sufficient to enable even the humblest Volunteer to go to camp without having to stint his family while he is away. My reason for making these few remarks is that during the short time I have been in Parliament I have found that unless the Under Secretaries of State are spoken to pretty directly they take it for granted that it is all right, that their proposals are perfectly satisfactory, and that the House of Commons does not want the capitation grant increased. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bring pressure to bear upon the Secretary of State in his

    149
    department, so that justice may be done to the Volunteers, and a capitation grant; given of at least, £1 per man more than at present. If that is done I have not the slightest doubt that the Volunteer force in this country will in a short time lie more than doubled in number. We in this House are all imbued with the same idea, namely, to avoid war and to maintain peace. The way to do that is to induce everybody to become a Volunteer, to get up to a standard of efficiency in drill, and to be able to handle his rifle. Then when we have got our countrymen to become Volunteers, when the people of the colonies and of the home country are all Volunteers, and we are able to defend ourselves if ' attacked, we shall be able to defer war indefinitely, and to use the great influence, power, wealth and intelligence of this country to promote increased prosperity in the future, and to strengthen the commercial predominance that we enjoy, f am in favour of this proposal to increase our Volunteer forces. When conscription was mentioned a great many hon. Members of this House cheered it to the echo, but I know many hon. Members do not hold that opinion privately, and I am one of them. I think it can be avoided, and the only way to do it and maintain the greatness of our Empire is by adopting a moderate application of the Ballot Act. The knowledge that a man may be unsuccessful in the ballot: and have to be a soldier for three months in the year will cause him to say to himself: "I am not going to run the risk of being balloted for; I will join the Volunteers." By that very stroke you would increase the Volunteers by hundreds of thousands, and though I am opposed to war—and there is no Member of this House more averse to it than I am—I say frankly that if I thought our country was absolutely unprepared to meet the great emergencies that we have had to meet during the last three or four months I certainly should have hesitated to have given my vote for this war. In my opinion, no blame attaches to the Colonial Secretary or to the Cabinet for this war, and in regard to it we have been living in a fools paradise. We little thought that this Empire would have been put to such straits, and if it had not been for our colonies and their assistance both of men and money—putting on one side altogether their moral
    150
    worth throughout the world—our difficulties might have been still greater. We have seen the noble patriotism shown by the Volunteers and the Yeomanry, and others from civil employment, who have readily responded to the appeal made to them to assist us in seeming for our fellow-countrymen out in the Transvaal what the nation has considered almost to a man is their due as regards political rights and liberty in a distant country. It is not a question of Government or party, but it is a question of our military system. We live in an age of railways and electric power, and yet as regards our military capabilities you can compare them to nothing else but the old feudal system, the days of canals and coaches. It is a fact that our military system is at present no better than the antiquated feudal system, without its advantages, and I was delighted when the Government, of which I may be considered a hearty supporter—and I have given them more votes, I believe, than most members on this side of the House—at the very outset decided that they would take the chivalrous part of saying that they would defend the actions of their Department. When I heard that I was more than satisfied, and I look forward to the time when the war clouds have passed by and when victory will be on our side [An HON. MEMBER: Question!] There is no question about that, for it is bound to come. When that time arrives we shall do full justice to the Boers, and we shall give them more justice than their own Government gave them. We shall give equal rights to all races in South Africa, and they will enjoy the same freedom and independence as is now enjoyed in our colonies and by ourselves. When the war is over I trust that we shall have a thorough and most impartial inquiry into the shortcomings of our military Department, and that no victory, however triumphant and complete, shall stop this.
    MR. T. B. CURRAN (): I rise, Sir, to add my voice to the number of those who from this quarter of the House have unanimously denounced the war which has been entered upon in the Transvaal as an unjust and unnecessary one, and being convinced of the injustice of the war I intend to record my vote against the granting of any sum

    151
    which will be utilised for the continuance of what I regard as an unholy enterprise. I hold the opinion, and I hold it in common with not only my own countrymen, but many an honest man throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain, that if the Boers were only allowed to live the lives God had given them in peace, and if there had been no gold in the country, there would have been no war in the Transvaal to-day. It is the greatest nonsense for Members opposite to say that the Uitlanders were suffering under any grievance which could justify a war. I think the remarkable figures and unanswerable facts quoted the other evening to a crowded House by the hon. Member for Carnarvon must have proved conclusive to any mind which was at all open to conviction that the rate of wages and conditions of life under which the Uitlanders lived and prospered in South Africa should be the envy of the working classes of this country, and certainly of Ireland. If Her Majesty's Government, instead of embarking upon this awful war, had looked around them at home in their own country, they would have found ample room for the rectification of serious grievances, not alone in this country, but especially in Ireland. To hear hon. Members opposite constantly referring to the unjust rule of President Kruger, and expressing their abhorrence of Transvaal tyranny, one would scarcely think that they were the same hon. Members who refuse to wipe from their statute book a law which deprives the people of Ireland of the greatest bulwark of all liberty—trial by jury. Again, Sir, who would think that the liberty-loving legislators opposite—who are prepared to spend priceless blood and millions of the taxpayers' money for the sake of a few-votes in the Transvaal—are the same gentlemen who bolster up a second chamber in their own country—a chamber for the election of whose members nobody can cast a vote—a chamber, too, which has power to nullify the enactments of men elected by the votes of the people themselves? I think, if I may venture to predict, that the time is not far distant when the people of this country—whatever their views may be to-day—will curse the war and those who created it. When the present Government came into office they hummed and hawed when questioned as to old age pensions, as they did about their financial arrange-
    152
    ments with Ireland. Then they talked about enormous expenditure. Yes, but old age pensions could only benefit the poor of the British Isles. But, Sir, when an occasion arose which would ultimately bring gain to the rich shareholders of the Chartered Company, the Government, with very little ado, plunged the country into a war which will cost the country some forty or fifty million pounds and your own national prestige as; well. Then, Sir, with regard to the question of England's interference with; the Boers and the internal affairs of their country. I believe that the Boers had a perfect right to say on what terms they would allow votes to foreigners who came I to their country to make use of their land. Every country in the world exercises that right, and why the Boers should be deprived of it I cannot understand.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into the causes I of the war or the policy which led up to I it. He is entitled to protest against the I continuance of the war.
    MR. T. B. CURRAN: We are told I also by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and by a largo section of the press of this country, that the Boers were arming themselves, and that sooner or later war must come. Why should there be war, unless brought about by the attitude of this country, or by the conduct of another Jameson? Considering the raid of 1895, what fools the Boers would have been if they had not armed themselves. Which one of us when once surprised by burglars would not at once write oft' to Birmingham for a stout lock and a six-chambered revolver; and talk as you may, we have no evidence to show that the Boers made any preparations of a warlike nature until after the raid—a raid which was contemptible in its conception as well as in its execution. Who was the arch-conspirator in this raid? Who can deny that it was Mr. Cecil Rhodes himself?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is really contravening my ruling. I have already pointed out that he is not entitled to discuss the policy which led up to the war. That does not arise on this Vote.
    Mr. T. B. CURRAN: I regret, Mr. Lowther, if I have departed from your ruling. I will conclude, Sir, by joining in the general condemnation from these benches of this unjust and unholy war; and being unjust, should not he continued. When this war is over, what will you gain? No matter with what success your arms meet in even the immediate future, the prestige which was yours but a few months ago is shaken, if not shattered to-day. The war is unjust, audit is costing you millions of money and priceless blood; and from the policy which Her Majesty's Government seem determined to pursue, it looks as if blood is still to flow and money is still to be spent. We in this quarter of the House, representing as we do a people asking for their own liberty, have had no part in this crime against civilisation. On the contrary, we have voted against it, we have spoken against it. It is a war which can only bring shame and disgrace on those responsible for it—a war which will add another, blot to the already besmirched escutcheon of England.
    COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY (): Mr. Lowther, the proposals of the Government have perhaps already been discussed from the military aspect, but after all these are Army Estimates, and with the approval of the Committee I should like to make a few remarks from the military point of view, and ask for information on certain points. I may say at once that I entirely approve in the main of many of the proposals of the Government, and I take this opportunity of expressing my admiration of the manner in which the mobilisation of the troops has been and is being carried out by the War Office. I did not believe it could have been carried out with such success. Twenty years ago some troops were sent in a great hurry to Zululand—only a fourth of the present force in South Africa—a fortnight after the receipt of the news of the battle of Island Iwana, but on the arrival of the troopship at St. Vincent it was found that it had no coal to enable it to proceed, and the troops had to remain at St. Vincent for nearly a fortnight. The present enormous force has been sent out without any hitch or any difficulty at all,
    154
    and I give great credit to the War Office for the manner in which the mobilisation was carried out. We have been able to mobilise a very large force for home and foreign service, but we have no provision for the future—no force ready to take the field at a moment's notice. That is, I have always contended, our weak point. On the outbreak of the war in South Africa we had not a single regiment ready to take the field. The Under Secretary for War says that the War Office could send troops from the Mediterranean, but it is forgotten that those garrisons must be relieved have always supported the short service and reserve system, but I have also, strongly advocated that we should always have a force ready DO take the field at a moment's notice. What the country would like to know is whether we have a strong force ready now to go to South Africa if required and telegraphed for. Whenever one force is sent out there should always be another force ready to take its place here and follow it up when required. We are sending a large number' of Militia and Volunteers to South Africa, but I consider it is not masses, that we require, but efficient and thoroughly trained men. I cannot understand why all these bodies should be called army corps. We have no commanders for these army corps in England, and a division is far more suitable and more pliable for us in this country. The organisation of the United Kingdom is quite sufficient, and I would ask why it is considered advisable to complicate that organisation by imitating the German system. If army corps are required they can easily be made up by three divisions, which is the normal number in an army corps, and we can add the artillery and cavalry, which should always be kept ready. I consider that different training-is required for our troops from that to which we have been accustomed in years gone by. Marches past and drills of that kind are not sufficient. Instead of that class of drill I consider we should have-far more rifle practice. I have advocated that before in this House, and also in the country. All the infantry should have a course of rifle practice for two months at least, instead of for only three weeks as at present. The Volunteers are allowed, I believe, seventy-five rounds, but many men often fire only twenty rounds. When the new regulations come into, force, each

    155
    man will, I understand, be required to fire forty-two rounds, but every round of ammunition served to the Volunteers to fire should be required to be fired in order to qualify for the capitation grant. I hope this subject of shooting will receive the most careful consideration of this House and the Government. We see the value of good shooting in South Africa now. The Boers are admirable shots, and we have unfortunately seen the value of their good shooting. I would like to ask the Under Secretary for War whether there is a large amount of ammunition in South Africa, not only for the purposes of the active part of the war, but also for practice on the lines of communication, and if not whether a sufficient amount will be sent out. Then there is the question of rifle ranges in England, which is no doubt a very difficult one. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, in answer to a question of mine, said he did not think that much could be done with the large number of ranges closed since the Lee-Metford was issued to the troops, because they would be dangerous. I think he is mistaken. Ranges abroad are almost in the towns, and by a careful system of walls and arches small ranges might be made perfectly safe and very effective. I consider a 300 yards range is far better than no range at all. It gives practice to the troops in firing from the shoulder, and with a small dark-coloured target, very different from the large mass of black and white now used, it would be a very satisfactory range. Another point I should like to impress on the Under Secretary is that there should be at least a general officer to superintend the shooting in the Army. Until the outbreak of this war there was a junior colonel in charge of the rifle shooting of the British Army, but he is now in Lady-smith doing admirable work, and no one is in charge. I consider that a general officer should have the superintendence of this most important duty, because I am convinced that not big battalions but straight shooting will win the battles of the future. The troops should have far more practice with the rifle than at present, to the exclusion, if necessary, of the old-fashioned drill. At inspections the general officer inspects a regiment in many details, but he rarely inspects its capacity in shooting at ranges or in scouting.
    The time has arrived for a change in the
    156
    fighting dress of all our troops. We; began the change in the Zulu War, when our men were in red and our officers in; blue—as bad a combination as possible. But in 1885 Sir Charles Warren, during the Bechuanaland Expedition, which was most admirably conducted, turned the colour of the dress of the force from that of a butterfly to a chrysalis—from red to brown. All the officers were armed with rifles and bandoliers, there was hardly a sword in the force, and no distinguishing, marks. Yet, with such an experience before us, troops went to South Africa lately with kilts, badges, and swords, and they suffered accordingly. The Yeomanry uniform is quite unsuitable for mounted infantry. I would ask what dress has now been decided on by the War Office for service on the Continent, or for drill here in England? Rod is a most conspicuous colour, and it is ridiculously impracticable to train men in peace time against men in red, when they will never see a bright colour in war. In stalking we try to see our game, and to prevent the game seeing us; but in South Africa we reverse the process—the Boers see our men, but they do not see the Boers, except at bayonet distance. It is absolutely necessary to have a dress for drill in the United Kingdom which our troops would be able to take abroad for active service. It is most expensive to the country that there should be so many sorts of uniform. Troops have been sent to South Africa with hardly a single article used in peace service, except the kilts of the Highlanders and the black belts of the Rifle regiments. It is also a great expense to officers. I understand that young officers who at the beginning of the year had got most expensive kits were unable to take with them to South Africa a single article of that kit. The Guards actually required four new coats. These are small details, but some of these details, especially in the dress and accoutrements of the soldiers, mean the lives of men. I hope this subject has been very fully considered by the War Office. The time has arrived when the country asks for less of the, show and more of the business of war.
    *MR. WASON (): I would not have intervened in this discussion but for the speech of an hon. Member who spoke of this war being unjust, and one which would be-

    157
    smirch the fair fame of this country. I am one of the youngest Members of this Parliament, and have recently gone through a contested election in which the war in South Africa was practically the sole topic discussed. I condemned the negotiations which led up to the war, but I maintained that if the President of the Transvaal had been as desirous of peace as his friends said he was peace would have been maintained. I was sent here, Mr. Lowther, by my constituents on the express understanding that I would vote for the necessary men and money to bring this war to a triumphant issue, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying these few words with reference to what my attitude was at my election. I have listened to tins discussion throughout, and have been much interested in the various speeches made in the various quarters. I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Salford division. He is an old athlete, and told us something of the athletics at the public schools. He and the hon. Member for the Woodstock Division of Oxfordshire were officers together in the early sixties at Rugby. When we went to the University together my hon. friend continued his volunteering experience by joining the Oxford Volunteers. I did not do so because I had a commission already in South Ayrshire, which I carried on for some time. When I came to London I got too heavy for rowing, and was no longer able to enjoy the pursuits of my youth, but I joined the Inns of Court Rifle Volunteers, otherwise called the "Devil's Own." Reference has been made to the difficulty of getting Volunteers to meet together. That has not always been a difficulty. When I was an officer in Scotland we thought nothing of going eighteen or twenty miles to drill, although these were not the days of bicycles. I would impress on the Under Secretary for War, the necessity of giving every possible encouragement to the Cyclist Volunteer Corps in this country. We have excellent roads. Cyclist corps are a cheap and a mobile force. Their mounts do not require stabling, food, or grooming, just a little oiling and dusting now and then, and they can do their fifty or sixty miles a day without fatigue. I think that the Volunteers have had too much of the cold shoulder from the War Office in the past: and they require to be en-
    158
    couraged in every possible manner. It has been said that a cavalry officer must have a private income of £400 or £500 a, year; but no young man can become a Volunteer officer unless he has private means at his command. I should like to see means taken to get the best young men with the best brains as Volunteer officers, irrespective of their private income. I heard a story the other day of two soldiers who wore going out on active service to South Africa, and who were talking of the Volunteers who were also going out. One said to the other, "Now we shall see what these damned twopenny-halfpenny Saturday afternoon soldiers can do." I venture to say that the Volunteers will give an extra good account of themselves, and that they are only too proud at this moment to be of service to the country. I trust, therefore, the War Office will encourage the Volunteers in every possible way. I was glad to sec in The Times today the letter of Lieutenant-Colonel Loft-house, who commands the Inns of Court Volunteers, suggesting that if there is to be a Militia ballot, which I should strongly deprecate, Volunteers who have passed as marksmen may very well be exempted.
    *SIR W. THORBURN (): I have first of all to congratulate my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War on the speech with which he introduced this measure of Army reform. I also sincerely congratulate him on a former speech, which raised him to the front rank of debaters of this House. I congratulate the country that at last we have got a Government which is prepared to put forward a real measure of Army reform for homo defence. I do not profess to be an expert in Army matters, but I feel pretty sure that the proposals of the Government will, upon the whole, be received with satisfaction in the country. I regret, however, that I cannot endorse the proposals which are made in regard to the Volunteers. I very much fear that these will be somewhat abortive. First of all, I believe that, unless the Government are prepared to give the Volunteers very substantial pay, the proposal to put them for a whole month under canvas will not be successfully carried out. As a large employer of labour I know the difficulty to which employers of labour will be put if that plan is carried out. It

    159
    might be successful if their going under canvas was limited to every second year, for in that case I am sure employers would do their utmost to facilitate such an arrangement.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAS (MR. WYNDHAM,): It is limited to only this year.
    *SIR W. THORBURN: I am glad misapprehended the hon. Gentleman. I am prepared to go very much further than the Government in the matter of Army reform. I am quite prepared to go the length of modified compulsion, and one way of effecting that would be to put the Militia ballot into force, exempting all members of the Volunteer force who became efficient. If not efficient then they should be liable to the ballot, and if drawn be compelled to serve. After some years training of both the Militia and the Volunteers I believe you could commence a system of Reserves which would provide an enormous and efficient military force for the purposes of home defence, available to meet any emergency. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Bath that the Government should encourage rifle clubs, and also that special attention should be devoted to rifle shooting in the Army. Reforms of other kinds are absolutely wanted. The cost of living for officers in the Army, especially in the cavalry regiments, is so great that no one but a man of wealth can join. That is a state of matters which no other country in Europe would permit. The expense officers are put to in connection with their uniform is also too great, and would not lie permitted in Germany, France, or Russia, perhaps the greatest military Powers in the world. The Army should be held out as a profession, and I do not think an army officer should be ashamed to walk about the streets in his uniform. The khaki uniform is comparatively inexpensive, and, as a fighting garment, nothing could be better. I hope the Government will take this matter of clothing into serious consideration, because in the present day the scarlet uniform is discredited, and has become absolutely impossible. Although not quite germane to the present debate, I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating the War Office on the extraordinary ability shown
    160
    in sending our forces to South Africa. A number of leading journals and military critics have been very severe on the Government, but I hold the Government deserves the thanks of the nation for what they have done. We have not had the experience of a great war for many years, and the fact that the War Office, in conjunction with the Admiralty, has been able to land a fighting force of 200,000 men in South Africa, in the short time at their disposal, is a very admirable performance. In conclusion, I again press upon the Government the careful consideration of some modified form of compulsory military service, without which I do not think we can have a thoroughly equipped force ready for any emergency and under all circumstances.
    MR. BROADHURST: I wish to call the attention of the Under Secretary for War to the view which is held by many hon. Members with regard to the Volunteers. If the Government persist in a month's drilling in camp for the Volunteers in each year, I rather fancy they will find that they will kill the Volunteer system altogether. It is impossible for the class of men to whom the Volunteers belong to leave their employment for a period of a month at one time. The Under Secretary intimated, that he did not yet know what grant would be made to the Volunteers for their month under canvas. Even supposing you give them a pound or two, that would not help their employers for and it would the loss of their be found that it would prevent young men being engaged in responsible positions in shops, offices, factories, and other places if it became known that they arc-under contract with the Government to leave their employment for a whole month to go under canvas. That would be a fatal part of the scheme, and an equally fatal part would be the prolonged of Militia training. It would t and. upset all industrial employment to such an extent that it would prove highly detrimental to the interests of both these branches of home defence. At the present time it is exceedingly difficult to get any considerable number of Volunteers to go under canvas for one week, and many who go once do not attempt to go again, because of the great

    161
    inconvenience. If you inquire among Volunteer officers and non-commissioned officers, you will find that the enormous difficulty they have in whipping up a sufficient number of their regiment to make a decent appearance in camp is not: imaginary, but real. [An HON. MEMBER: Not in Lancashire.] After all, is this not true, and has it not been proved by this war, that men who have never been in camp or under military training in large numbers are equally efficient in the field as fighting soldiers as those who have spent a long time in barrack life and in reviews and parades. The real thing, if you want to make this enlarged branch of our home defence effective, is to teach the men to shoot. That is a thing you have never taught the men. I agree that rather than have no range at all a 100 yards range would be better. There can be no difficulty in obtaining a 300 yards or a 500 yards range. If you are going in to be a military nation, with universal service in the; Army, the landowners will have to contribute their part to the scheme by surrendering their property for rifle practice, without which home defence or any other defence is a mere delusion and a snare. In regard to the artillery, only a month i back I met a gentleman who was on his way to volunteer his services for South Africa, and he assured me that only in one week, all the years he had been in the Volunteer service, had he had any practice with a breech-loading gun. What use is there in wasting men's time and causing expense if they have not the proper materials to perfect themselves upon? These are things which, in the interest of everyone concerned, it is desirable for the Government to take seriously into consideration. I understand the Government said that they detest conscription. Ah! but there are hon. Members sitting behind the Government, men of experience and authority in military matters, who have expressed an opinion in favour of it, who say that you will be compelled to come to it, but that you must first take the Militia ballot. But what is that but conscription? It is conscription in the instalment form for home service. The Government have, no doubt, got to the end of their tether in regard to the usual common mode of voluntary enlistment, and I doubt if they will be able to find the men, even if we give them the money, without adopting other means
    162
    than those now before the House. One of the hon. and gallant Members opposite, in the office of candid friend, said—
    "Your present scheme will not avail you, and will you tell us at what period in its failure you will come to the House and ask for general conscription?"
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman had in his mind, no doubt, that the Government could not get the men by the proposals which are under discussion. I do not think they will, and I am sure the Government themselves do not think they will, and if they attempt some of the reforms to which I have referred, they will not only not increase the Volunteer force, but decrease and ultimately destroy them. Now I do not want to see the Volunteers destroyed or discouraged, or any step taken which will strike a blow at their efficiency or numbers. I am not approaching this in any unfriendly spirit; I only wish to say I hope nothing will be done that may injure this branch of the service. I hope the Government will tell the hon. Member for Evesham at what period of the failure to obtain men they will come to the House and ask for authority for the Militia ballot. That is a very important question, and one which I should not have dared to ask. We are to-night on the threshold of a great military future; we are initiating a scheme by which, in time, every youth of eighteen years of age will have to do so many years service in the Army of this country. I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the question, but we ought to have some information with respect to it, and not have it thrust upon us without warning. I wish the Government could in its wisdom pension off some of its prominent members and their associates; if they could do this we should not want this increase of home defence. Your policy of unrest is the cause of our military difficulties, and while you are expending money and shedding blood abroad, many of your people at home are dying from want of the necessaries of life. I am not prepared to refuse the demands of the Government now. A great conflagration has been started and the only thing to be done is to extinguish it as soon as possible. But I hope the responsibility for the outbreak will be brought home to the hon. Gentlemen to whose actions the war is due, and that

    163
    they will have to give an account of the crime which has necessitated the expenditure for which we are voting the supplies to-night.
    MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)said the scheme proposed by the Government for increasing the efficiency of home defence was a very judicious one. He did not agree with hon. Members who advocated some modified form of compulsion. In the Volunteers we had a quarter of a million of men who had passed through the ranks, of whom the nation might well be proud, and in times of war such as this, this great body of able men had been a source of great comfort to the country. Private endeavour had supported the Volunteer movement in the most magnificent manner, but he regretted that on the part of the Executive the support had been of the most parsimonious description. He was very grateful, therefore, to hear that the capitation grant was to be increased. The amount by which it was to be increased had not been stated, and whether it was to be 2s. or £2 nobody knew, but he would urge the Government in any case to grant a very substantial amount. He would suggest the capitation grant should be raised to double its present amount, so that the Volunteer force might be put upon a sound financial basis. He urged the Government to give an increased capitation grant to Volunteer corps which did not possess either rifle ranges or drill-halls, and also to assist regiments whose officers had incurred financial obligations by establishing drill-halls. If the Government resolved to give the Volunteers substantial financial aid, they would be supported by the House and by the country, and would experience no difficulty in procuring the extra number of men now required.
    *SIR HENRY FLETCHER (): For the last twenty years I have taken part in every military debate that has taken place in this House, and on this occasion I wish to say a few words on the proposed increase in the number of men which is now asked for. I wish the Under Secretary would see his way to ask for a far larger number of men than he has, because the temper of the House
    164
    and the country and the men who are likely to come forward is such that no difficulty could arise in his obtaining whatever number he desired. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Leicester say he would support this measure, although he somewhat threw cold water on the scheme by saying he did not think the men would be found. I have no doubt that if the War Office authorities set about the business in a proper straightforward manner, they will have no difficulty in filling the battalions. I can carry my recollection back to the time of the Crimean War, at which time we had to raise something like twenty-five battalions; but the system which was adopted then could not be carried out now. Twenty-five battalions were raised, and in many instances command was given to officers, colonels by rank, who had retired from the service. In those days the system of purchase was in vogue, and the colonel had the privilege of giving ten commissions as ensigns to ten gentlemen who desired to enter the Army. Each ensign had the power to bring in 100 men with him, and battalions of 1,000 strong were very soon formed. That system cannot be adopted now owing to the abolition of purchase. Another reason was that many of the commissions were given to officers of the Militia who brought their men with them. It is now different. I am glad to say the Militia is embodied and is at the front. I do not, however, despair of the result of this scheme. A number of the men whom the Under Secretary thinks he will be able to bring into the ranks will be men who have served with the colours and in the ranks for twelve years, and when we consider that many of the men who have served their twelve years are now only thirty, there are many between thirty and forty years of age who will willingly come forward and join the colours again in such numbers that the Secretary of State need not in any way fear the success of his scheme. With regard to the Militia, I do not wish to offer any observation. The Militia is represented in this House by hon. Members qualified to speak for it in a proper manner. Turning to the Volunteers, with which I have been connected ever since the initiation of the force forty-one years ago, and which I am still serving, I can say what is the feeling of the force in regard to this

    165
    scheme. There is no doubt that the Volunteers are flocking by hundreds to be enrolled in the existing regiments, and the movement is progressing in a rapid and successful way. I thank the authorities and the Secretary of State for. War for the words he uttered the other day in another place that it is the intention of the Government to ask certain Auxiliary officers of high rank to take a seat in the War Office in order to act as advisers to the military authorities. We Volunteers, therefore, are now recognised more than heretofore. I can recollect in the early days it was very uphill work. We were, I will not say hardly tolerated, but we were looked upon with very little satisfaction by the military authorities. We have now reached that reward which the military authorities have been pleased to bestow on us during the past few years. The great question is will this scheme as put forward by the Government in all its phases be satisfactory? They will get the number of men they want, but as to the question of camping. There is one who has had a battalion in camp for twenty-six years past who will tell the authorities they will have great difficulty in getting the employers to allow, or the men themselves to remain in camp for a month. I have often thought, on the last day of the camp week, when I had had 800 or 900 men, who after their week's exertions had proved themselves well drilled, fairly disciplined, and satisfactory in every way, I have often thought, what a hardship and what a mistake it was that they were obliged to be disbanded and sent back into their civil life, when a few weeks more must have fitted them so much more for their soldier life. But I have thought all this over, and see great difficulty in the proposition put forward by Her Majesty's Government, that Volunteers shall or may, I believe that is the correct word, remain in camp for a period of one month. But if such is the wish of the authorities, I can assure the Government that as a commanding officer and one who has taken an interest in the force for many years, I will use every endeavour to carry out the wishes of the authorities, and I can say this for all commanding officers, in order that we may prove ourselves civilians first and soldiers afterwards. May I here say a word on the question of ranges. That is a matter which has occu-
    166
    pied my mind and attention for many years. This is in my opinion the crux of the whole system of the Volunteer force. Provide the battalions with ranges within a near distance of the headquarters, and don't attempt to send them by rail two or three hours on a Saturday afternoon to go to their class firing. No amount of money the Government may offer to pay travelling expenses will meet that vexed question. Every endeavour should be made that suitable ranges should be found as near as possible to headquarters. And if I may otter a suggestion, let the military authorities have looked over, and once more have inspected, some of the disused ranges we had to give up when the Martini was exchanged for the Lee-Metford, and I feel sure, from my knowledge of rifles and ranges, that many will be found perfectly suitable now for the Lee-Metford. The hon. Member for Leicester said, and I agree with him, that if we cannot find ranges of 800 or 1,000 yards we should get ranges at 200 yards. I have always laid down this principle. We ought to endeavour to teach a Volunteer to shoot well up to 500 yards. I do not care what becomes of a man afterwards if he cannot carry out his class firing at a distance beyond that. Ranges of this kind at least can be obtained, and the Government at this time must use every endeavour to get such ranges for the Volunteers. I wish also that a little longer time were given to go into this important question. Another very serious matter is that connected with the transport of the Volunteers. That subject I have taken up for years, and in this House, on those benches and on these, I have urged on the military authorities and the Government the necessity of finding some proper means of providing transports for the Volunteers. The "man in the street" has told me that a few years ago a Committee sat in the House of Commons on that question and reported. And last year the Under Secretary for War put before the House the proposals of the authorities with regard to the transport allowed to Volunteers. I must say that it was not a satisfactory offer which the authorities made to us last year. The amount is not sufficient, and I do not think it will be found that any single commanding officer or brigadier has taken any steps to provide the transport or the allowance

    167
    the Government offered. We were told that we were to be provided with hired transport. Well, I only hope that if we are to be provided with hired transport we shall be allowed to have a liberal allowance, and to find our own hired transport. Do not let us be thrust upon Messrs. Brown, Jones, Smith, or Robinson of any big town or city, because if this is done it will only be handed by them over to others who will possibly fail to carry out the requirements necessary. Give us a liberal allowance and then I feel satisfied that the question of transport, though it be only carried out by the Volunteers, will be far more satisfactory to the Volunteer force than it has been in the past. If the authorities are going into the question of the reorganisation of the Volunteers, may I suggest to them one matter, personal though it may seem, because it affects those in a position like myself—the system of brigadiers and brigades in the Volunteer force. At present the position held by myself and others is perfectly anomalous. We know nothing of what is going on in connection with our brigades, with the exception of the one week they are serving under us in camp. If the brigade system is to be carried out, if the Volunteer officers are to be made use of, give us more work to do, give us a little more insight into the working of the system than we have at present, and I hope and trust, whatever is done in the reorganisation or the resettling of the Volunteer force the Government will not lose sight, and the military authorities will not lose sight of it, that we are now a body of men over 215,000 efficient, I think the Under Secretary of State for War said, who are determined, if we are treated in a proper way and placed in the position in which our services can be used, we are men who have forgotten all that is past, and are determined to do our duty in whatever place the authorities may choose to send us.
    *MR. JOHN BURNS (): Sir, I am not a military man, I am not a Volunteer, and, like nearly every other man of sense in the country, I am not a friend of the War Office. I wise, however, to speak on certain points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War, in his speech, because I wish to protest against the scheme he
    168
    proposes in some of its details-, and against merging some permanent arrangement for defence at home with some different scheme for attack abroad: I protest against the amalgamation of both, plans because it may be capable of political' misinterpretation in the constituencies,, and because I think emergency, schemes of military preparation ought not to be dragged into the arena of party controversy; and it would have been better for the Government had they confined themselves entirely to emergency proposals,, whether for South Africa, whether for the Militia, or whether for the Volunteers, and to have kept them almost religiously apart from the question of permanent defence and, probably, ultimate conscription, and which undoubtedly add needlessly to our military expenditure to an enormous extent. The people who support this War did not ask for this scheme that could have been produced when the Army Estimates came on. People want the machinery for this war perfected; they demand concentration from the War Office, and get confusion; they want quicker transport, more and better guns; they want routine abandoned,, red tape discarded, conflicting plans harmonised, the various movements co-ordinated with the ease and simplicity the Boers have displayed. They want the adaptation of means to ends, and that with promptitude. And, having said that, I protest, as a practical man, against the scheme because it savours of panic. It is very much like the speech of Lord Rosebery in another place this evening, in which his Lordship asked for many more men in. addition to those which you have already dispatched. But in this he is practically alone, and the reason; for the demand I the people cannot understand. The average British elector is quite convinced that there are quite enough men in. South Africa, if you only had better tactics, better strategy, and better leadership than we have had up to now. What we want is not more British' troops, but Boer generalship; and the sooner the War Office comes round to that view the better it will be for us. If this scheme is intended to impress foreign Powers, I say it has absolutely failed, because looking at the foreign newspapers—mind, I do not at all agree with all that the French and German and Austrian newspapers say of us—you find that section of Continental opinion, which you cannot

    169
    judiciously ignore, is flatly against you. Again, if the scheme was intended to help the emergency in South Africa, it is, according to the military critics, useless. Once more the War Office has shown its inadaptability to meet difficulty with resource. What I wish to know is, where is the military expenditure of this nation going to stop? We are told that we want more men. Do we.? Well, the Transvaal Republic in population is about as large as the parish of Lambeth, or about two-thirds of the size of (that single London constituency which I have the honour to represent, and yet we are told that to fight an enemy of such proportions, 200,000 men are not enough. The total of our forces in this country, on the seas, and in our colonies and dependencies numbers nearly a million men. Yet we are told that is not enough. We are told that the Militia Ballot Act is to be abandoned, and that conscription will ultimately be necessary. I do not believe that this country will have conscription, and may I not suggest to the House of Commons that there is an alternative to this militarising of the people in the abandonment of our spread-eagle imperialism and our long-spoon diplomacy, and the telling of people abroad to mend their manners? Let us look at what it is leading us to, and glance at the figures of the expenditure during the short space of fifteen years. In 1885 we spent £30,000,000 on the Army and Navy; to-day we are spending the abnormal sum of £51,000,000. Where is this extravagance to cease? We are now spending £10,000,000 more than Russia; £14,000,000 more than Germany; and £10,000,000 more than France in naval and military armaments; yet we are told that it is not enough. Well, Sir, the British workman and the masses of this country have a knack of expressing themselves in no uncertain way at the poll against panic schemes of this order, and I believe the answer will be emphatic when his opinion is asked. There was one thing in the speech of the Under Secretary of State for War which was highly satisfactory, in as much as it conveyed an official repudiation by the Government of any attempt at conscription. That is the one spark of consolation that shone in his speech. But why does the Under Secretary for War repudiate conscription? Because he knows that conscription the people of this country won't have; and I put it boldly before the House now, that if the
    170
    people of England have to choose between the lopping off of some of the colonies—that are not so valuable as some men seem to imagine—and the loss of a few millions a year in trade: if they are to choose, I say, between that and conscription they would rather lose those colonies and their attendant millions than have all the moral and social disadvantages that conscription imposes on an nation ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members say "No"; and the hon. Gentleman opposite nods his head. Does he want to reproduce in England the autocratic intolerance of Germany? Does he wish to see England smitten with the disease which Spain and Italy and France are suffering from in the terrorising despotism of military control? If he does, militarism, and its product, conscription, will do it. But conscription has been avoided by the Government less because of its national effects than for class convenience. One reason why I believe conscription was repudiated is that if it were once introduced the Army would no longer be the appanage of the aristocracy and the perquisite of the rich. Conscription would break down the family arrangement by which the titles get the salaries and the untitled get the work. In my opinion, the proposals for the training of the Volunteers are unworkable, and in this connection I have a suggestion to make on a problem which the War Office can readily solve if it is really in earnest. They have only to ask the Government to slip a clause into every railway Bill that passes through Parliament that Volunteers when engaged in travelling to I and from the shooting ranges shall lie carried free. That is a contribution I that railway companies ought to pay towards the Volunteers making themselves efficient in the art of defending their property in time of war. The Volunteers also want more efficient commanding officers than they now have, as merit in the Volunteer force, like the Army, is often over-ridden, because social position without military skill too often counts for promotion. Then we come to another branch of the scheme—and I am very sorry that we have not that fine old English gentleman, the gallant Sir George Chesney, with us this evening to reproduce on the floor of this House one or two of the frequent criticisms he wrote in that little booklet of his, nearly twenty years ago, as to what Great Britain needed for its expe-

    171
    ditionary wars. He said, among other things, that we should always have an army of 30,000 men, which he specially defined, ready to take the field in less than twenty-four hours. A force mobile, ubiquitous, unencumbered by the useless gear a British army always has. Of course that is a principle which I expect would not find favour at the War Office. There is the insuperable obstacle, of officers baggage to take into consideration. This kind of thing ought to be stopped. Officers ought not to be allowed to encumber their regiments on the march with all the baggage I saw at Aldershot. Boot-trees should be left at home, as well as golf sticks, tennis racquets, and opera hats, and surplus uniforms. All this mountain of impedimenta affected by British officers, and which is bound to hamper the progress of an army, should be discarded when thousands of gallant lives are hanging in the balance. It is all very well for the Under Secretary to put up a Bill calling for men, to try to summon spirits from the vasty deep. I do not think men will respond after the war fever has passed. I am sorry to say that the middle and professional classes, who have clamoured for the war have not volunteered as they should have done. There are only two classes who pay the blood tax of their country—the aristocracy in the officers and the labouring classes in the men. This war has typified the mental and administrative decay of the governing classes. If the London County Council had managed its fire brigade with no more ability and promptitude than the War Office has displayed in the management of this war, people would have been burnt in their beds three nights a week. I am almost inclined to suggest that the management of the next war should be left to the fire brigade committee of the County Council. The Under Secretary has not mentioned the noncommissioned officer. How long is he to be debarred from that treatment his energy, ability, experience, and capacity deserve? The governing classes have drawn a ring fence round the commissioned ranks of the Army; and they have nipped in the bud the aspiration of the non-commissioned officer to gain his commission. This should not be allowed to continue when the margin of our officers is so rapidly dwindling in the present war by the pluck and
    172
    gallant leadership of the officers. If you want to test the accuracy of my statement go to Aldershot, as I have done, and see for yourselves. You will see whole batteries going away in charge of youths of eighteen or nineteen years of age. We have colour-sergeants and sergeant-majors who with their experience are infinitely better than a dozen of these young fellows, thrown together. Why do I emphasise that? Because there is no mention of the-non-commissioned officer in the scheme. If hon. Members doubt the capacity of our non-commissioned officers let them go and see that splendid soldier Sergeant-major Foules, of the 1st Grenadier Guards, manage his battalion. In manner, ability, knowledge, and all that goes to make a good soldier he makes those men work bettor than the famous Guards I saw reviewed at St. Petersburg. We hear a good deal of the precision and drill of the Berlin Guards. Sergeant-Majors Foules' and Best's, of the Grenadiers and Cold-streams, are two of the best drills I have ever seen in Europe. But you will not give these men command of a regiment. Why? There is some reason. It is not because rankers are not fit or capable, it is because you have put a ring fence round the commissioned ranks that must be broken down if the Army is to be efficient and popular. Remove the-reason for refusing promotion from the ranks, and you will have abler, stronger, and better men in your Army than you now have, and until you do so-your Army will not be so popular as it deserves to be. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke on the other side suggested that we wanted more troops in Africa. I do not agree with him. What does the Figaro of yesterday say in criticising our military arrangements? It says that the reason the British soldier: has succeeded in all parts of the world, especially in hot countries, is that the-British military system has insisted on quality as against quantity. Instead of throwing a mass of 100,000 men, whether from the Volunteers or Militia, at the heads of the British I taxpayer, I believe you would do much more good if your unintelligent War Office were to insist on greater efficiency in the Army than we now have. By doing that you will follow the best traditions and experience of Greece and Rome in fighting, and you; will justify the opinion of every military

    173
    critic on the Continent that we hold India and our colonies not by the number of our troops, but because of the pluck of the rank and file and the greater average efficiency of the unit in the voluntary Indian Army than is possible under conscription. I agree with that view, and it is because I have thought this matter out that I say the need of the Army is not great masses of troops, but the highest quality of efficiency that only a free enlistment system can yield. With regard to the dress of the soldier, I am one of those who have been subjected to a great deal of adverse criticism, because years ago I ventured to say what every military critic is now thinking, that the dress was unsuited to the work, and that the British officer too frequently dressed like a gilded popinjay. I repeat that statement on the floor of the House: it is justified by fact and by experience. Immediately a war breaks out you strip the officers of their upholstery, because it is a mark for the enemy; you take the gilt off the gingerbread, you have to leave the helmet with its attracting glitter at home, and all the gay and gilded trappings are discarded. When your troops should be ready and on the way to the front, needless delay is caused by your having to reclothe them tit for their proper work. The hon. and gallant Member who suggested an improvement in dress ought to know there is nothing connected with the soldiers that more requires reform, yea, revolution, than the dress of the private soldier. Of course, we all like to see both our soldiers and our sailors smart, but you can have smartness with efficiency in uniform and indistinctness in colour. Take, for instance, the regiment if the hon. and gallant Member for Essex—the Grenadiers. [An HON. MEMBER: The Cold-streams.] Very well, the Cold-streams—in dress they are all alike, and they are, though very showy, all equally bad. With his undress uniform you give him a hat that does not protect him from the rain or sun; it is a sort of inverted collar-box, and ought to have been condemned years ago. You stuff him into a tight-fitting tunic, distinguishable to the enemy and unpleasant to work in at home or abroad—so unpleasant that at Chitral and Dargai, where the men had to fight, the first thing that many of them did was to take their bayonet or knife and rip their tunics open, loose though they relatively
    174
    are. At home the soldier prefers to do the most elementary duties in his shirt sleeves, because his dress does not give him freedom of physical movement. As to full dress, look at his busby! In the summer it is beastly hot, and in the winter it makes the man more miserable, because the rain comes down all over his face, and the longer he is in the rain the heavier the busby becomes. Coming from his head to his feet, look at the kind of boots you give these big fellows in which to do their drill and marching, the chief portion of a soldier's work. You spend £9 on his busby and 8s. on his boots. I would reverse the operation. I would not have him put into hard and unsympathetic boots such as you see him walking about the streets of London in. You ought to follow the example of the County Council in regard to their park-keepers, and spend 16s. or 18s. per pair for boots for your soldiers so as to make them comfortable, because a very good soldier ought to be a good walker. Now I come to my last point. You have difficulty in getting men. Why? The Nemesis of the English landlord has arrived. We are beginning to realise now that it was a mistake to depopulate the Scotch glens centuries ago. We are beginning to see, by the shrinkage of the Highland population, by the unwillingness of the Scotch to enlist, that it was a mistake to have the straths and valleys which formerly had 300 cottages with only two or three in them now. Deer have taken the place of men. But now the Nemesis of the landlord has arrived, and the governing classes cannot get strong, big men from the highland valleys and the Irish glens as was formerly the case. And what is more, England, rural do populated England, is now telling its tale in the difficulty of getting soldiers to fight your battles. When I am told there is a difficulty in getting recruits, my answer is that you, especially the gentlemen of England, are responsible for it. You have rendered it impossible for the countryside to find its modern archers, the men who saved you at Cressy, Poictiers, and Agincourt, to be reared in the villages, because you have turned them out—you have driven your yeomen to the towns. Your land system, the espion—age of your parson, the social inquisition of the country side, the petty tyranny of rural life are now beginning to tell in the outposts of empire. I also

    175
    want to tell you this, when you talk about conscription remember that Britain is unlike Germany, France, or Italy. You can have a conscript army in Germany or other Continental countries. Why? Because the recruit serves as a rule in his own district and near his friends. But the very essential basis of the British Army is that you should have a foreign service of able, healthy, and o voluntary men. Therefore, when men ask in this House for conscription I tell them that it is unsuited to the work the British Army has to do. Immediately you impose conscription the efficiency of the British Army abroad will disappear, and you will want an army three times its present size, which will present the rapidity of movement, fitness of the unit, and decisiveness of action that our Colonial and Indian system of warfare demands. Above all, if you want the British Army to be as it should be, follow out what Napoleon did: take your Ney or Murat from the ranks where he has distinguished himself as a private or non-commissioned officer, make him an officer, and let ability and merit alone count for promotion in the British Army. If Napoleon had been conducting this war 500 commissions would have been given on the field to soldiers of the rank and file. Unless you do that you will discourage your Army; it will be unattractive, which means inefficient for its purpose. Then, when you have your Army reorganised and on a popular basis, I sincerely trust you will give the men greater freedom than they now enjoy. Treat them more like men and less like children. And, above all, when you have got your men and got your Army, do, in the name of England's honour and our best traditions, use them in an infinitely more just and better war than that in which our soldiers are at present engaged in South Africa.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I found it a little difficult to follow the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. He was kind enough to say that in the speech I made few days ago the only clear point was my repudiation of conscription. The only thing which to my mind is clear in the speech to which we have just listened is that the name of the War Office with the hon. Member is a term of generic reproach which he applies to anything which he reads in the newspapers or hears in the streets from which he differs, or
    176
    which gives him a moment's annoyance. The hon. Member told us he was going to make one or two suggestions, but surely he underrates his contribution to the debate. The hon. Member ransacked the newspapers of every country and has gone far a field for his examples, but the upshot of the matter is that he is profoundly dissatisfied with all classes in this country. He blamed what he calls the aristocracy, because they were extravagant and stupid, but in the next portion of his speech he paid a tribute to their courage; and he proceeded to attack the middle classes. It is very difficult to follow all this, but in another part of his speech he said it was really too hard to expect any employer of labour to give his men leave for a week, a fortnight, or a month in the course of the year for a special emergency. But while he was so tender on behalf of employers of labour as a whole he saw no hardship whatever in asking the shareholders of railways to carry 300 or 400 men for nothing during the busiest months of the summer. I take a very much higher view than the hon. Member of the patriotism of employers of labour. In a year when it behaves us all to do what we can in order to make good the absence of the greater part of our Army in South Africa, I am convinced that the employers of labour will be among the first to assist us in that manner which lies best in their power. The hon. Member made a Special attack upon the arrangements for transport in South Africa. There is a great deal of misapprehension about that. I have here a letter from General Forestier-Walker, commanding the lines of communication, in which he says:—
    "It will lie observed that there was on, and, indeed, some time previous to, December 31, a large unused balance of ox-transport amounting to 548 wagons with oxen complete and also a number of loose oxen."
    That is a little fact to be set against all this rhetoric. The hon. Member made one definite criticism of our scheme; he said that we had been very ill-advised in not keeping the permanent part of this scheme separate from the emergency part of the scheme. But is that possible? The hon. Member may think so, but those in this House who are experts in the matter will not agree with him. The permanent part of this scheme is necessary unless the country is prepared to contemplate sending the forces that have been sent to South Africa and having no force in this country trained to take the

    177
    swift offensive in the event of our being-threatened by any other Power. I will not argue with the Hon, member, because I know that the whole balance of military opinion in and out of the House is with us in asking for these batteries of artillery which are essential. As to the new infantry battalions, any one who has studied our duties in other parts of the Empire—the necessity of garrisoning India and the colonial stations—knows that the Army has been racked and strained because we have not a sufficient number of infantry battalions. Hon. members have been insisting that after this war is over we shall have to keep a garrison in South Africa, Is it, therefore, unreasonable to submit to this House a proposal for additional infantry battalions and additional batteries of artillery? We cannot keep this apart from the emergency scheme, because the need for both has arisen at the same time and from the same cause. I think I can now perhaps pass from the speech of the hon. Member. Before we had had a very variegated debate. There had been some speeches of one kind and other speeches more numerous of a very different kind. Of the first type there were the speeches of hon. Members representing Irish constituencies. With regard to these speeches I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee in dealing with them at very great length. The hon. Member who spoke first said that he had the courage of his convictions, and was prepared to support them by speech and vote. I never imputed any want of courage to him. gentlemen who came from Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You could not, because your great-grandfather was an Irish rebel.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I say this in no offensive spirit, but there are others of the countrymen of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who are doing something more than talk, and giving something more than votes—who are giving their lives. I feel that there is no need for me to answer the words of hon. Gentlemen with my words, when their own countrymen are giving an answer with deeds and death in South Africa. Long after this somewhat factitious attempt, this gallery display, got up for the benefit of foreign countries, is forgotten—for it will not take up two lines in the Annual Register or any future history—the gallantry of Irish soldiers in South Africa will be re-
    178
    membered. It will have several lines in history; and the most distinguished of the hon. Member's fellow-countrymen—Lord Roberts—will have some paragraphs, and perhaps some pages. The hon. Member said that our expectations that this war would be followed by peace would prove to be unfounded, and that no such result had followed any parallel event in history. The hon. Member cited the American war of the last century, but yon cannot prove that there is no parallel by merely quoting one instance in which a parallel could not be traced. For a better parallel I would direct the hon. Member's attention to the American war of this century. That was a war waged by white races, by Christians, by men each who believed that they were fighting for their rights, and that a great principle was at stake, and the side which took the larger view of what the development of humanity demanded—the side which was fighting for results beneficial not only to themselves, but to the whole future of the country which they inhabited—won in the end, but after great sacrifices and prolonged effort. That is the parallel which I would submit to the House.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman for one moment, but I am sure he will recognise that the parallel is not complete when he reflects that these two peoples were of the same race, not like the English and Dutch.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I doubt whether that improves the hon. Member's position. At the first blush it makes that war more repugnant. But we must not be carried away by emotion and sentiment. We must consider that the view which will bring the most benefit to the greater number of people over the longest period of years is the just view, and that is a view for which Christian gentlemen can fight with confidence. I feel that I have been rather led away by the matter to which I have referred. I pass to the other type of speeches—speeches which were in some measure invoked by the word "invitation" (the word is not in great favour just now, but I used it when I introduced this scheme), namely, an invitation for criticism and suggestion from those hon. Members who bear or have borne Her Majesty's commission, or who take an active interest in the Auxiliary forces. Well, we have had in

    179
    the course of this discussion some useful suggestions; but I may perhaps be allowed to say that it would be impossible to go in detail all over these various points I which have cropped up. But I wish to: say, with regard to these remarks of hon. Members on both sides, that a great deal of their criticism has been anticipated, and I think they will find that many of their suggestions have been accepted. Now let me answer all these criticisms together, if I can, by this plain statement. Our proposals in respect to the Auxiliary forces are enabling: they are not mandatory. In the main I may say they are emergency proposals, and they are not; permanent proposals. I wish to make: that point quite clear, because one Member after another has got up and said, "Volunteers will never train for a month together. You make a great mistake in asking them to do so." That is very likely. It is very likely that the great majority of Volunteer corps cannot even in a year of great stress and of some legitimate apprehension make this sacrifice, or without the sacrifice falling on the employers of labour rather than on the men. But there are some corps which have asked to be allowed to train for a month. Now, in making our enabling proposal, would we not have put ourselves utterly in the wrong if we had said to all, "We will give you a camp and a water-supply and a payment to cover expenses for a week or ten days, but not for a longer period"? Why, I am sure that several members of this House who have asked for these privileges would have tackled me, and I should have had no defence. But now my defence is complete. If a corps cannot train for a month, let it train for a more limited period. The facilities we should offer will be commensurate with the disposition or ability on their part to train themselves. Then I have been told that the scheme was incomprehensible and impracticable, because I did not mention the exact terms of the inducement which would be offered. That was referred to by the hon. Member who spoke last, but it shows that he knows very little about the Volunteers. As things are now, in order to be efficient, a Volunteer has to do some twelve drills, of which three only need be battalion drills. There are cases where some corps can do battalion drills; easily, and other cases whore battalion drills are difficult of achievement owing to distance. They could not do these batta-
    180
    lion drills, comparatively easy in some instances, except at an expense of £30, £40, or £50 to the commanding officer. Now how foolish it would have been if we had come down to this House with a cut-and-dried plan, saying we would give so much money for so many drills, which would be too little in some cases and far too much in others. We prefer to make two bold and broad conditions for the future with regard to the Volunteers. We say that, as a permanent proposal, we shall treat them better, and, as an emergency proposal as to this year, we say we mean to offer them facilities for making themselves efficient during the spring and summer. As to the inducements, we say that the expenses of the scheme which we recommend for adoption by the country must come, not out of the private purse of the Volunteers or their officers, but shall be paid for by the taxpayers of the country in return for the security which the Volunteers are going to give to the people of the country. Then we have the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath, amongst many others, insisting upon greater facilities for musketry, and we agree with much that has been said on this subject. In asking the Volunteers to make themselves efficient, we shall have the greatest regard to shooting. We are asked, "Why not open close ranges?" But it must be remembered you cannot prevent a bullet going as far as it will; although you fire at the butts at 300 yards the bullet may go 2,000. Something more is needed, and the question is being studied. There is an ingenious device which may, and I think will, enable us to construct short ranges. That will be done, and in asking the Volunteers to make themselves efficient, we should give them the opportunity of shooting under the most favourable circumstances. Other hon. Gentlemen have urged that we should not give too much importance to mere smartness or precision in parade movements. Quite true. But some of the speakers do not seem to know that in the regular army a company or squadron are for a period of one or two months handed over to their company officers and instructed in those very duties of entrenching and so forth. I believe that when the Volunteers come under canvas—as they will, in spite of some of the croaking we have heard this evening—they will derive very great benefits not less distinguishable from those which have been derived from

    181
    what is called company training. Then, us to underclothing. We are working at the War Office on this very subject. It may not prove such an economy as some hon. Members suppose, but every change as a rule costs more than the tiling you uproot. And, rightly so, because with every change you meet legitimate demands which have been too long denied. It is impossible in my opinion—I may be wrong, and I cannot pledge anyone to this—to make a fundamental change in the dress of the soldier without recognising that the State must give the necessary underclothing. It is quite impossible to have one dross for peace and war, for temperate and tropical climates, unless you can increase the cost of the underclothing, and therefore I am afraid that some disappointment will be caused as to the economy to be effected by a most workmanlike and businesslike proposal. Let us, I would say, preserve the traditional dress of the soldier for Sunday. That would not cost money, and traditional sentiment counts for very much, and rightly so. But to tell me that the garb in which the British soldier is now winning such glory and the respect of all races—[Irish laughter]—Hon. Members laugh, but I said the British soldier, and in that expression I, of course, include the Irish soldier. Is it not glorious to face death as they have faced it, and what is victory beside such noble sacrifices and such undaunted courage? That is the soldier's part. Let blame or failure be placed here, not on him. The dress in which he has fought will be a dress that will soon become romantic, and will be invested with more sentiment and with more tradition than those which are, after all, but the memories of the dress in which his forefathers fought.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER (): Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question of the hon. Member for Battersea as to non-commissioned officers?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That subject is being considered, and is being acted on, as I think I informed the House some days ago. Special instructions have been telegraphed to Lord Roberts to discover, wherever he can, in the non-commissioned ranks of the large forces under his command those men who might make useful officers. But it is not such an easy matter as the hon. Member for
    182
    Battersea thinks. The bulk of non-commissioned officers and privates wish to be quartermasters, and do not wish to take the heavier responsibility of commanding-troops in the field. But where they are suited for those duties very few impediments, if any, are placed in their path. If the Committee have followed these rather discursive remarks, if they are now satisfied, I will not say with the scheme, but with the principle which underlies the scheme—namely, that it is an enabling, not a mandatory, scheme, I hope that we may now be allowed to take the Vote. We do think that the occasion demands an effort on the part of all in this country. We have put compulsion on one side, not, as an hon. Member said, because the people will not stand it, but because we, the Government, will not have it, and least of all a modified compulsion. Modified compulsion has always led, and must always lead, to immoderate abuse. It is one thing to say to every, young man of twenty it is your duty to serve your country and you shall do it, and another thing to have a kind of lottery in which one out of thirty or one out of fifty would be adventitiously committed to a career which he does not wish to follow, and which, perhaps, involves him, making far greater sacrifices than would; have been made by any one of the other forty-nine. In one form or another that must lead, as it has always led, to the payment of enormous sums for substitutes, and if once you got that, as you had at the beginning of the century, when the use of the ballot was abandoned in consequence, you have corruption at the very basis of your military system. We do away with that if the Committee gives us that for which we ask. If we have three army corps why do you need to fill up the Militia beyond these establishments? If you cannot fill up these establishments it is because the Govern-I merit does not offer sufficient inducements. How does it advance your object to force men into the Militia? The scheme has been openly put forward by many speakers, not as one to build up, the Militia, but in order to drive men: into the Volunteers so as to avoid their' going into the Militia. I think it is more English, and more likely to fit in with the views of our countrymen, if we go to them frankly and say, "We want sc many soldiers, we want so many Militiamen,, and we want as many Volunteers as we can get, and we are prepared to pay you for

    183
    it if you give evidence that you are determined and ready to make sacrifices corresponding to the inducements we offer." I believe our scheme for strengthening the military forces of the country will improve on acquaintance. I purposely put it forward without blandishment or praise because I think it will stand on its merits, and I on my part will always decline to float any scheme by issuing a highly-coloured prospectus.
    *MR. WEIR (): I Intend to support the motion now before the Committee, not because I have any love for the administration of the War Office, for I think that is very bad indeed, but because I consider that at the present crisis in our country we should stand shoulder to shoulder and be prepared to find as many men and as much money as may be required in order to bring this war to a satisfactory conclusion. At the same time I feel that I must protest against the way this Supplementary Estimate has been introduced. I object to this process of mixing Supplementary Estimates with ordinary Army Estimates, and I fail to see why the hon. Gentleman would not have waited another six weeks, when the ordinary Army Estimates would come on. I am aware that as we extend our Empire we must have a larger force. It is no use closing our eyes to that fact. Nevertheless, all these extra men should be provided for in the Army Estimates and not in the Supplementary Estimates, I want to know where you are to find these men? In a time like this there may be no difficulty, but in time of peace then the difficulty will arise. The War Office knows what difficulties have arisen within the last two or three years in regard to recruiting. The Highlands of Scotland have become depopulated, and when you want recruits from that part of the country you will be unable to find them. What you ought to do is to arrange to put the people back on the land in order that we may have men to fill the ranks in the future. There is one matter to which I wish specially to call the hon. Gentleman's attention. In my own county I believe the Militia have to travel 200 miles before they can get to the depot. You should have barracks in Ross-shire, and then you would get men to join more freely. Some of the officers of the Seaforth Highlanders have their quarters
    184
    in Dingwall, whilst the men have to go all the way to Fort George. The hon. Gentleman thinks it will be easy for employers of labour to allow Volunteers to go for a month's drill. He must not forget, however, that employers have to boar the expenses of management of their business during the absence of their employes, and the ordinary employer cannot afford to grant a lengthened leave of absence to his employes. The hon. Gentleman says it is not compulsory, but many Volunteers are business men, and cannot afford to go away for a long time. I do not believe the Militia will be able to go under canvas for the period arranged. I am sure you will have to arrange the time of the year to suit the men, and not merely to suit the officers. In Scotland, if you take the men during the fishing season, how are they to earn their living the other nine months in the year? You will also have to take care that you provide your Militia and Volunteers with rifles that are properly sighted. It is very discreditable that we should send out men to South Africa with rifles with inaccurate sights, simply to be shot down by the Boers. You should also provide your Militia and Volunteers with machine guns, and not old muzzle-loaders. The men ought to be drilled with the best weapons obtainable. I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to these matters, and I hope he will give them his careful consideration. I heartily support this motion, because I think it is our duty to do all we can to strengthen the hands of the Government at this crisis.
    *MR. FLAVIN (): I wish to say a few words on the Vote before the House, because I feel it my bounden duty as an Irish representative to protest in the strongest possible manner against any increase in Her Majesty's forces in order to prosecute what I consider is an unjust and unfair war, by which you are endeavouring to take away the liberties of two Republics. I can only say in connection with the position the Under Sccretary of State for War occupies that I regret that such a noble descendant of such a noble Irishman as Lord Edward Fitzgerald should be occupying a position which is certainly not in harmony with the ideas and aspirations of his ancestors. We have heard in the debate that is going on many speeches, some for and some against

    185
    the war. We have heard speeches made against the war by some gentlemen who feel it their duty to vote for the war. We hold that our position is consistent because from the beginning to the end of this war we felt it our duty to protest against it, because we believe it is unjust. Apart from any feelings we hold as Irish men, I say that on the utterances of your public men—of the Leader of the Government in this House and the Colonial Secretary, and on the opinion of the Leader of the Government in the other House, any Irishman is perfectly entitled on those opinions expressed to come to the conclusion, and form their opinions that this war is unjust and a cruel one. I do not wish to discuss this question at length, but perhaps I may be permitted to state that the Colonial Secretary once expressed his opinion that this war would be as cruel as it was immoral; and the right hon. Gentleman expressed that view on the question of the franchise, I believe, At that time the franchise was fourteen years. When Mr. Kruger made his proposal—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! The policy which led to the war cannot lie discussed now.
    *MR. FLAVIN: I prefaced my remarks by saying that I did not intend to discuss that point. [Ministerial laughter.] I repeat, Mr. Lowther, that I did not intend to discuss that point at any length, but I wanted to say in the presence of the Colonial Secretary that what he said in 1896 was either false or true. If that declaration in 1896, that such a war would be unjust and immoral, is true, how much more unjust and immoral is the war now, when the franchise was reduced to five years? For that reason I say that the sooner this war is ended the sooner peace will prevail. The continuance of the war, in my opinion, means a continuance of war and strife in this country and elsewhere. A continuation of the war in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State will not alone mean a continuation of the war there. It may mean larger and more important complications for this Empire. Therefore, I hold that I am perfectly justified in saying that the sooner this war ends the sooner peace will prevail. We have had a statement made here about foreign alliances, and about the friendly expression of opinion by foreign Powers. If these statements are true, why have you an appeal here to
    186
    night for another 115,000 men? Is it to subdue a population of 150,000 men, women and children, or is it as a menace to foreign Powers, whose alliance and friendship you profess to have? The longer you pursue this war the greater the danger to your Empire. The longer you pursue it the greater quantity of blood will you sacrifice on foreign soil. I ask what proportion of this 115,000 men must Ireland contribute. I am as convinced as I am standing in this House [Laughter]—I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that their laughing and jeering won't stop me—I am as sure as I am speaking here that the vast majority of the men who are fighting in South Africa are not fighting for liberty but for slavery. They are not fighting of their own free will, as they fought on the hillsides of Ireland for liberty, but they are fighting to take away that liberty which you yourselves gave, and which you acknowledge the Transvaal and the Orange Free State are entitled to. It is a mere subterfuge to state you are fighting for freedom and equal rights. In our judgment the war should cease, and many hon. Members on the other side know that this is not a war for the franchise but a war for gold. We have heard the very able Lender Secretary for War, in his reply, speak of the glory of British and Irish soldiers facing death in such a cause. I fail to see what glory can come on an Irishman's shoulders in carrying the Union Jack on to victory, and when he comes back minus an arm or a leg, or wounded in the body, he will be treated the same as the Crimean veterans, have been treated. I have made here appeal after appeal on behalf of the men who carried you on to victory in the Crimea, and what is your answer? Why, you gave those veterans an Irish workhouse and a pauper's grave. A man who fought at Alma, Inkerman, and Sebastopol you gave 8d. a day, and why won't you increase his pension? You say it is because the law is not retrospective; neither will it be retrospective when the men come back from the Transvaal. As long as the Irish can carry you on to victory and possess youth and health they are valuable to-you, but the moment they become unfit for service you throw them on the resources of a helpless wife and family, and you shift them about as you have shifted the wife of an Irish soldier who is an Englishwoman. [Laughter.] Yes, it is quite correct, and I will prove the case. Within the last twelve months you

    187
    took a poor Englishwoman, whose husband died in your Army, and sent her into my constituency to be kept out of the rates at our expense.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place,
    and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
    Question put, "That the question be now put."
    The Committee divided—Ayes, 236; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 15.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Allhusen, Augustus Hn. Eden

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Finch, George H.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fisher, William Hayes

    M'Crae, George

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Fison, Fredk, William

    M'Killop, James

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Malcolm, Ian

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Manners, Lord E. Win. J.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flower, Ernest

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

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

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Gartit, William

    Monckton, Edward Philip

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

    Gedge, Sydney

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hnts.

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Beckett, Ernest William

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

    Mure, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bethell, Commander

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Godson, Sir A. Frederick

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Bill, Charles

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

    Billson, Alfred

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Murray, Col. Wynd. (Bath)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gretton, John

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bond, Edward

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Olroyd, Mark

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Brassey, Albert

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Pease, Herb, Pike (Darlington)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hardy, Laurence

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Butcher, John George

    Haslett, Sir James

    Penn, John

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Homer Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Caldwell, James

    Hazell, Walter

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Carlile, William Walter

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Pilkington, R. (Lanes Newton

    Canston, Richard Knight

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lan. S. W.

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

    Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cavendish V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

    Plunket, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Holland, William Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Howell, William Tudor

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Purvis, Robert

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carn

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

    Joicey, Sir James

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Cotton Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Kenyon, James

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Round, James

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Keswick, William

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Curzon, Viscount

    Kimlier, Henry

    Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenh'm)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kitson, Sir James

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Knowles, Lees

    Rutherford, John

    Denny, Colonel

    Lafone, Alfred

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Langley, Batty

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir Charles

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Long, Col. Chase, W. (Evesham

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

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lome, Marquess of

    Strachey, Edward

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Lowe, Francis William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

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

    Wason, Eugene

    Wodehouse, Rt Hon E.R. (Bath

    Tennant, Harold John

    Webster, Sir Richard E.

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huds'fd)

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

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

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Wylie, Alexander

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Wyndham, George

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Williams, Joseph Powell-(Bir.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Flynn. James Christopher

    Price, Robert John

    Ashton, Thomas (Gair

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Redmond, J. K. (Waterford)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Blake, Edward

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Burns, John

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

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tully, Jasper

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Weir, James Galloway

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, H. J. (York, W. K.)

    Engledew, Charles John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Woods, Samuel

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

    Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

    Parnell, John Howard

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Question put accordingly, "That a further number of land forces, not exceeding 120,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and
    abroad, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 34. (Division List No. 16.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Cavendish, V C.W (Derbyshire

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Arnold, Alfred

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Garlit, William

    Arnold-Forster, Hugo O.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gedge, Sydney

    Arrol, Sir William

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

    Asmith, Rt. Hn. Herbert. H.

    Colomb. Sir John Charles Ready

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glas.)

    Godson, Sir Angustus Frederick

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Baird, John Geo. Alexander

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Balearres, Lord

    Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Gretton, John

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Curzon, Viscount

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Denny, colonel

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Benrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Bethell, Commander

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Hardy, Laurence

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Haslett, Sir James Homer

    Bill, Charles

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Billson, Alfred

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Hazell, Walter

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Henderson, Alexander

    Bond, Edward

    Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

    Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middels'x

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Holland, William Henry

    Brassey, Albert

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Finch, George H.

    Hozier, Hon J. H. Cecil

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Butcher, John George

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Caldwell, James

    Fison, Frederick William

    Joicey, Sir James

    Cable, William Walter

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Kenyon, James

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Keswick, William

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Strachey, Edward

    Kimber, Henry

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Straus, Arthur

    Kitson, Sir James

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Knowles, Lees

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier

    Lafone, Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Langley, Batty

    Pease, Herbert Pike Darlingt'n

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan E.

    Leese, Sir J. F (Accrington)

    Penn, John

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton

    Tollemache. Henry James

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs, SW

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lowe, Francis William

    Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Price, Robert John

    Wason, Eugene

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Provand Andrew Dryburgh

    Webster, Sir Richard E.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Weir, James Galloway

    MacIvre, Sir John William

    Purvis, Robert

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

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

    M'Crae, George

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    M'Killop, James

    Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Malcolm, Ian

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

    Williams, Jos'ph Powell-(Birm.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

    Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

    Round, James

    Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

    Middlemore, John T.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

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

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

    Montagu, Hon. J. Seott (Hants.)

    Rutherford, John

    Woods, Samuel

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

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

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wyndham, George

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew

    Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

    NOES.

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

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Blake, Edward

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Burns, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Q'n'sC)

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

    Crean, Eugene

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tully, Jasper

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Mandeville, J. Francis

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

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Engledew, Charles John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

    Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

    O'Malley, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Parnell, John Howard

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    It being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (): I desire to make an appeal to the Government not to put down on the Orders any Bills of which there is no prospect or chance of them coming on. There is the Companies Bill, in which many Members are interested. I think it is very hard to keep us here until after midnight when there is no chance of that
  Bill coming on, and it might be possible to put this Bill down when there is some likelihood of it being reached.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, but, as he is aware, it is extremely difficult to make correct prophecies as to Parliamentary weather. I will do my best to meet the hon. Gentleman's desire.

  RIFLE RANGES CLOSED IN EASTERN DISTRICT.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 15th February; Mr. Powell-Williams]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LORD DUNBOYNE.
Petition of Robert St. John Fitz-Walter Butler, Baron of Dunboyne, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
London County Tramways (No. 2).
And also a special report from the Examiners in respect of the following Bill:
Great Grimsby Street Tramways [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for additional provision, of the Caledonian Railway Company; together with proposed amendment and clause annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2379. Japan (Hiogo and Osaka).
  No. 2380. Italy (Venice).
  No. 2381. Argentine Republic (Finances).

  STATISTICS.
  Statistical Tables relating to the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom, Part XXII., for the years 1894–95–96.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890; CONSULAR SALARIES AND FEES ACT, 1891; FOREIGN MARRIAGE ACT, 1892.
  Orders in Council, dated 29th January. 1900:—
  I. "The China and Corea (Consular and Marriage Fees)" Order in Council, 1900.
  II. "The Japan (Consular and Marriage fees)" Order in Council, 1900.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 29th January, 1900, "The North-Eastern Rhodesia Order in Council, 1900."
  COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892.
  Order in Council, of 29th January, 1900, applying "the Colonial Probates Act, 1892" to the British Possession of the Island of St. Helena.
  GENERAL HOSPITALS ACTS, 1805 AND 1809.
  Order in Council, of 29th January, 1900, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to a re-arrangement of the number of Naval and Greenwich Hospital Pensions to Naval and Marine Officers of the retired and pensioned list of Her Majesty's Navy.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS RANKS.
  Eighth Annual Report of proceedings of the Inspection Committee, for the year ended 20th November, 1899; with appendices.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Account showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the telegraph service during the year ended 31st March, 1899, and a statement additional to the above account.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MONEY-LENDING BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to persons carrying on business as moneylenders—Was presented by the Lord James of Hereford; read 1a; and to be printed (No. 10.)

  STANDING COMMITTEE—NOMINATION OF CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS.
  Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee—Report from, that the Committee have nominated the following
  4
  Lords to serve as Chairmen of the Standing Committee—

  E. Halsbury. (L. Chancellor.)

  V. Cross. (L. Privy Seal.)

  E. Morley.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Kimberley.

  L. Elgin. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  And that the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee:

  L. Archbp. of Canterbury.

  E. Halsbury. (L. Chancellor.)

  L. Archbp. of York.

  D. Devonshire. (L. President.)

  V. Cross. (L. Privy Seal.)

  D. Bedford.

  I). Marlborough.

  D. Rutland.

  D. Northumberland.

  M. Lansdowne.

  M. Salisbury.

  M. Bath.

  M. Ripon.

  M. Breadalbane.

  E. Pembroke and Montgomery. (L. Steward.)

  E. Denbigh.

  E. Stamford.

  E. Chesterfield.

  E. Jersey.

  E. Lauderdale.

  E. Carnwath.

  E. Cowper.

  E. Stanhope.

  E. Waldegrave.

  E. Portsmouth.

  E. Spencer.

  E. Clarendon.

  E. Onslow.

  E. Grey.

  E. Morley.

  E. Vane. (M. Londonderry.)

  E. Cawdor.

  E. Camperdown.

  E. Dudley.

  E. Kimberley.

  E. Selborne.

  E. Cranbrook.

  E. Ancaster.

  E. Crewe.

  V. Falkland.

  V. Sidmouth.

  V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

  V. Knutsford.

  V. Llandaff.

  V. Peel.

  L. Bp. London.

  5

  L. Bp. Winchester.

  L. Hopetoun. (E. Hopetoun.) (L. Chamberlain.)

  L. Clinton.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  L. Saltoun.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Churchill.

  L. Harris.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Plunket.

  L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  L. Leigh.

  L. Wenlock.

  L. Elgin. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  L. Belper.

  L. Lawrence.

  L. Aberdare.

  L. Coleridge.

  L. Norton.

  L. Shute. (V. Barrington.)

  L. Rowton.

  L. Ampthill.

  L. Keay.

  L. Tweedmouth.

  L. Northbourne.

  L. Sudley. (E. Arran.)

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Lingen.

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Thring.

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Cheylosmore.

  L. Morris.

  L. Iveagh.

  L. Kelvin.

  L. Rookwood.

  L. Shand.

  L. Ashcombe.

  L. Hawkesbury.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Welby.

  L. Russell of Killowen.

  L. Davey.

  L. Wandsworth.

  L. Burghelere.

  L. James.

  L. Pirbright.

  L. Glenesk.

  L. Heneage.

  L. Glanusk.

  L. Brampton.

  L. Cranworth.

  L. Avebury.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.] [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading agreed.
  *THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, before asking you to read a second time the Bill that is now before you, I will endeavour, as briefly as possible, to explain some of the reasons which have made its introduction necessary. The Public Health Act of 1875 enabled a local authority to provide isolation hospitals and to join with other local authorities in providing a central hospital for surrounding districts, but, unfortunately, no doubt owing to the fact that the Act of 1875 was entirely permissive, isolation hospital accommodation has not been provided to anything like the extent which is now thought necessary. To remedy this state of affairs, the Isolation Hospitals Act of 1893 was introduced, and passed. That Act does not apply to Scotland or Ireland, nor does it apply to the county of London or to the county boroughs. Amongst other provisions, it empowers county councils to cause to be provided isolation hospitals within their administrative area, and to group together suitable districts to be served by one hospital. It also enables county councils, out of the county rate, to grant annual sums of money towards the maintenance of these hospitals. Now, my Lords, it was assumed until quite recently that where an efficient hospital had been established under the 1875 Act, the local authority could, with the assent of the Local Government Board, transfer that hospital to the county council; and it was also assumed that the county council would have power, under the 1893 Act, where it thought desirable, to grant a subsidy to these hospitals out of the country rate. It was only last year that the Local Government Board decided that it was not possible to act in either of these two cases—that is to say, there were no provisions in the Act of 1893 which would enable these things to be done. The result has been to bring about an absolute deadlock in many parts of the country. Where the county council has made a comprehensive scheme embracing the whole of its administrative area it would

  7
  be grossly unfair to put the Act into, operation; for this reason, that the local authority which had been foremost in providing hospital accommodation under the Public Health Act of 1875 would be doubly penalised. In the first place, they would have to contribute their portion of the county rate towards the maintenance of their neighbours' hospitals, they would not be allowed to take any share of that county rate, and, in addition, they would have, by themselves, to keep up their own local hospital. This Bill has been introduced to try and remedy that unfortunate state of affairs. I will explain very briefly the provisions of the Bill; it is a very short one, consisting of only five clauses. The first clause is the title. The second gives power to the local authority, with the assent of the Local Government Board, to transfer any hospital they may have erected under the 1875 Act to the county council. Clause 3 provides the manner in which the expenses incurred by that transfer are to be met. Clause 4 gives power to county councils to contribute, by a capital sum or by an annual contribution, to any efficient hospitals built under the 1875 Act. Clause 5 enables county councils to borrow: money, a provision which, I think, by accident was not included in the 1893 Act. Some counties, my Lords, prefer to contribute towards the capital charge of erecting these hospitals; some, on the other hand, would prefer to contribute out of the county; rate towards their maintenance. This last clause gives to the county councils the opportunity of borrowing if they so desire. The Bill which I am now moving is exactly the same as the one which passed through your Lordships' House last session. It is approved by; the Local Government Board, and is entirely enabling. There is no compulsion at all about it, and I have brought it in on behalf of the County Councils Association, which, as your Lordships know, represents all the counties in England and Wales. We had hoped that the Local Government Board would have seen their way to take up this measure themselves. We asked them last autumn if they would do so, and received the following reply from the Assistant Secretary—
  "I am directed to state that the Board have given consideration to the matter, but they are not themselves prepared to introduce a Bill on the subject."
  8
  I cannot understand why the Local Government Board have not seen their way to take up this matter. I think they have incurred a grave responsibility by not doing so. I have, explained to your Lordships that a great deal more hospital accommodation is required, and until a Bill such as is now before you is passed, into law it will be impossible in many counties to go any further with the scheme of providing isolation hospitals. If a great epidemic were to break out, I think the Government which declines to bring in a measure of this sort would be responsible to a very great extent. In my county—Staffordshire—only one-sixth of the hospital accommodation required for the population, numbering one million, has been provided, and what applies to my county applies to other counties in, England. I trust that the Government will look into this matter, and that, if. unable to take up the Bill themselves, they will do all in their power to assist its passage through the House of Commons, for your Lordships all know, how extremely difficult it is for a private Member to get a Bill through that House. My noble friend Lord Northbrook had intended to be present this evening, but he has authorised me to say that he thoroughly supports the request which I have just made to the Government. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am: afraid. I am. not in a position to deal with that part of my noble friend's speech in which he made a strong appeal to the Government to take up this Bill. I suppose the Government had good reasons last year for not taking it up then. Their refusal was probably due to the heavy pressure of work, and I imagine the same reason has actuated them this year in so far declining to take up the Bill. But I will take care that the strong expression of opinion which the noble Lord has-given shall be brought to the notice of the President of the Local Government Board, and, if possible, that his wishes, shall be' complied with. As regards the Bill itself, your Lordships-passed it, in its present form, last year. The Memorandum sets forth the objects of the Bill, and, although it does not quite set out the opinions of the Local Government Board,

  9
  that Board has no objection to its passage this year.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I should like to express my hearty concurrence with what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite, and I trust that the Government will see their way to take up this Bill. There is no dispute as to the advantages which will accrue from the passing of it, and it is really pitiful that Bills of very great utility, which we keep on passing through this House, have no chance in the House of Commons. If the Government cannot see their way to take up the Bill I trust they will strongly support it, and facilitate its passing into law.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—REJECTION OF VOLUNTEERS AFTER PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT.
  EARL BROWNLOW: My Lords, I beg to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience caused by the rejection of Volunteers for service in South Africa by the army medical officers after the men have got their clothing and equipment; and to ask whether some means cannot be found to remove the cause of complaint. There has been some correspondence lately in the newspapers upon this subject, but this correspondence has dealt chiefly with criticisms of the cause of rejection. This is not the point which I wish to bring before the House. I think it would be foolish, I may even say cruel, to send men out to the front who were physically unfit for the duties which they would be called upon to perform, and I cannot see that the War Office would be justified in trusting anyone else with the examination except their own medical officers. I do not complain of the rejection of Volunteers on the ground of physical unfitness, but I complain of the procedure. The procedure is this. The War Office have called upon Volunteer battalions to provide a company to join the territorial battalion in South Africa. With the greatest patriotism and ardour, in most cases a very much larger number of men than were required have come forward
  10
  and volunteered for service. They are weeded out by the commanding officer, who makes a selection of picked men from their number. Then the commanding officer and adjutant work their very hardest to get these men properly and efficiently equipped for the front. When they are thoroughly equipped the next thing to follow is the attestation, but just before the attestation, when the men have probably arrived at the headquarters of the regimental district, the army medical officer steps in and rejects a certain number of them. What is the result? These unfortunate men who are rejected crawl home to their native towns under a deep sense of humiliation and disgust. It must be remembered that they have, within the previous few days, probably thrown up situations in which they were employed, and made arrangements for their businesses to be carried on during their absence; they have taken a final leave of their friends and families; they have probably had a good "send off," as it is called, from their native place they have left the station amidst the cheering of the whole population and the handshaking of their friends, with the band playing "Auld Lang Syne" on the platform. But in a few days some of these unfortunate, men return home feeling that they are marked men—rejected Volunteers. Is this wise or necessary? I cannot see why these poor men should be subjected to such humiliation, or why the War Office should bring down on itself so much censure and dissatisfaction. Though the cause may be slight, the evil is very far reaching, and, as far as I can see, the whole matter might be settled simply by a stroke of the pen. I would venture to suggest that the first thing that should be done after the men have been selected is that they should be medically examined by the army doctor, and after that the attestation might follow immediately, and the men should then be given leave and allowed to remain in their homes until their clothing and equipment are ready. There is another very simple plan—namely, to carry out the medical examination, let the men go home, get their clothing and equipment, and then let them be attested when they are ready. I perfectly understand that in the Army it is desirable to examine a man and attest him immediately; but Volunteers are not men who will give you the slip between

  11
  taking the shilling and the attestation. They are only too anxious to get to the front, and therefore they might with perfect safety be allowed to remain in their homes between the medical examination and the attestations. I venture to make those two suggestions, but it is possible some third course may suggest itself to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. I sincerely trust that some means may be found to remedy what I consider a very real and reasonable grievance.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My noble friend called my attention to this matter a few days ago, and I at once made inquiries into the procedure which has been followed. I agree with him that the procedure can be improved in the direction which he suggests. Up to the present these men have been attested and medically inspected simultaneously, and I have no doubt that the reason for the course adopted was that it is the course which is followed in the case of recruits of the Line. But the case of the Volunteers is not the same as that of a Line recruit, and I think some attempt should be made to remedy what appears to my noble friend and me to be a grievance. I propose, therefore, that for the future the procedure shall be that which is described in a regulation which we have already drafted to meet the case—
  "When a Volunteer commanding officer receives an application from any Volunteer he will at once nave him medically inspected. When he has received sufficient applications from Volunteers, who have been passed medically lit, to form not less than a section, he will so inform the officer commanding the regimental depot to which his battalion is affiliated, who will then, if they are to form part of the Service Company, have them attested. Medical inspections may be carried out by any medical officer holding a commission in any portion of Her Majesty's service."
  I think that change in the regulations will put an end to the hardship which has arisen. I am afraid it is the case that most of these Volunteer companies have already been formed and have joined their line battalions; but, of course, it is conceivable that a similar case may arise hereafter, and we shall therefore make the change in the regulations which I have indicated to your Lordships.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It is, of course, satisfactory to hear that this
  12
  grievance which the noble Lord opposite has placed before the House will be remedied, as I had no doubt it would be when it came to the ears of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. But I am sorry to say that what has-happened in regard to the medical inspection of the Volunteers seems to give the public outside a very poor idea of the mode in which the administration at the War Office is carried on. There must be some one at the War Office, I suppose, capable of exercising some small portion of common sense, and of preventing the putting into force of a regulation which is obviously inapplicable, vexatious, and absurd. I only trust this is not an example of what occurs in larger matters, but these small matters certainly do give the impression to the public that there is something materially wrong in the administration of the War Office.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Lord is perhaps a little hard on the War Office. Those arrangements under which companies of selected. Volunteers have been allowed to join their Line battalions were introduced, I will not say hurriedly, but at very short notice. The office was working under great pressure, and I think this slip, if it was a slip, was a venial one under the circumstances.
  EARL BROWNLOW: I am extremely glad to hear from the noble Marquess that there is to be a change in the regulations. Although he said that most of the Volunteer companies had been already formed, I will remind him that commanding officers have been called upon to prepare reserve companies, if required; so very likely the case will come up again.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PROPERTY OF COMBATANT BOERS—OPERATIONS IN NATIVE DISTRICTS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has asked me to postpone the following question standing in my name—namely:
  "To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the cattle and other property of combatants Boers are to be exempted from seizure, and, if so, for what reason; also, to ask whether the Zulus and other natives whose country may be invaded by the Boers are prohibited from defending themselves from invasion, and, if so, for what reason."
  I have agreed to do so.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—CONTEMPLATED MILITARY MEASURES.
  *THE EARL OK DUNEAVEN: My Lords, I think your Lordships will admit that it was impossible to adequately discuss the complicated and interesting statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War on the occasion on which it was delivered. The statement was far too important and touched upon issues far too grave to be discussed without time for adequate and minute consideration. At the same time it was a statement which I felt sure your Lordships would wish to have an opportunity of discussing, and I therefore placed the notice standing in my name—"To call attention to the statement of the Secretary of State for War"—on the Paper for the first favourable opportunity that occurred. I cannot say that the feeling of disappointment which gradually came over me in listening to the statement of my noble friend has been minimised or diminished by a close scrutiny of his speech. The proposals of Her Majesty's Government do not appear to me to have been conceived with a view to possible eventualities—very remote, but still possible—which I think ought to have been borne in mind in considering the steps that were necessary to place the nation in the most capable state both for offence and defence. I doubt very much whether the proposals of Her Majesty's Government will be sufficient even for the requirements of the war in which we are at present engaged, supposing it is not complicated by any untoward event. I do not see in these proposals any indication that steps of a permanent nature will be taken to adapt our Army to the now proved requirements of modern war, or to adequately develop the undeveloped I strength and resources of the country, or to do anything in the way of reconstructing and improving the machinery of the War Office. It is a curious thing, and what my noble friend called the other night the "irony of fate," that this nation—we who are, or, at any rate, think we are, a great maritine Power, but who are not, and do not pretend to be, a military Power—that it should have fallen upon us to be an object lesson of the vast change that has come over war owing to the great development in projectiles and artillery and small arms of late years. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say, that with the adoption
  14
  of smokeless powder, the great improvement in guns, the enormous range to which they attain now the accuracy of rifle fire, and the other improvements in modern war, a greater change has taken place during the quarter of a century since the last great war than has occurred during the preceding four or five centuries. I doubt if it is an exaggeration to say that the change from the use of bows and arrows to the use of powder did not inaugurate a greater revolution in strategy tactics and the constitution of armies than that which the change in modern guns and other implements of war has produced and is producing the result of the bitter experience which we are now undergoing must be to largely recast the Army in a new mould, to call much more attention to accuracy of shooting, and less attention to the power of manœuvring accurately in large bodies, and to largely increase that hybrid force we call mounted infantry. I see very little indication in the proposals, of Her Majesty's Government that the great lessons which the war has taught us are grasped or realised. Speaking broadly, the proposals of the Government appear to me to come to little more than this—they hope, but are not at all sure, that they may bring the Militia and the Volunteers up to their proper establishment strength; they are trying to induce old soldiers, men who have passed out of the reserves, to enlist for a year—a good and useful idea; they are doing a very valuable service in rearming the Volunteer-artillery; they are creating a number of new batteries, and they propose to add twelve battalions to the infantry of the Line and some cavalry regiments, about which I have a word to say. As to any necessary changes which might be made in the organisation of the War Office nothing whatever is said. I can understand that, and do not press the point, for I agree with my noble friend the Secretary of State for War that it world be unwise to embark upon great organic changes in a period of great emergency such as that which we are now passing through. I should like to say, great in speaking of the War Office, that, in my humble opinion, the War Office, in sending out such a large number of troops and vast accumulation of stores across 6,000 miles of ocean, have performed a great feat, and have performed it in a manner far superior to that which their critics generally supposed was possible.

  15
  At the same time, I think that many defects have been proved to exist by the trial through which we are passing, defects which have over and over again, year after year, been pointed out, alas! without any effect. I quite agree that it would be worse than idle to expect any changes to be inaugurated or announced now, but I venture to express the hope that, when this war is over, a serious reconstruction of the Department I may be taken in hand, and that the War Office may not be allowed to relapse into its normal condition of lethargic self-content. What is it that Her Majesty's Government proposes with regard to the prosecution of the war? We arc told that 50,000 additional troops are under orders for the seat of war and that when they arrive the total number of troops in South Africa will be 200,000 men. This is a very large force, but I do not quite understand the figures of the noble Marquess. The Secretary of State for War informed the House that in October 28,000 men I were sent out, in November 26,000, in December 24,000, and in January 25,000, making a total of 103,000 men. He stated also that there were 23,000 men in South Africa at the commencement of the war, which would bring the total number up to 126,000. If you add the 50,000 which are under orders or on their way to South Africa it will bring the total up to 176,000. That leaves a balance of 24,000 men. I suppose the balance consists of the colonial contingent ' and troops raised in South Africa, but perhaps the noble Marquess will give me some further information as to these figures. I do not want to naggle about figures in any way, but when we consider the forces that the Queen has to prosecute the war and the forces we have for defensive purposes at home, it is well that we should exactly, understand the figures placed before us. I should like to know how many of the; 200,000 men are to be considered effective. Have we to deduct the men invalided, killed and wounded, and prisoners? Is the ordinary waste and wear of war, amounting, I suppose, in this case, to 10,000 men or more, to be deducted from 200,000? I am curious to know what proportion of the effective men we may reasonably consider can be put into the fighting line. I do not know whether I should be overstating it, or understating
  16
  it, if I suggested that with such enormously long lines of communication we cannot calculate upon putting into the fighting line more than half of the effective force. I should like to receive any information on that point. I cannot persuade myself that a reinforcement of 50,000 men is sufficient. I sincerely trust it may be sufficient; but it seems to me that up to the present in no single instance have our generals been provided with forces sufficient for the operations they had to undertake. I do not think anyone would say that if General Buller's forces had been doubled, and doubled again, he would have had one man too many for the very arduous task he is endeavouring to perform. I should have liked to have heard that at least 100,000 additional men were to be sent out to South Africa. One hundred thousand men sent together would be infinitely more effective than 50,000 men sent now and another 50,000 in two or three months time. Again, the noble Marquess told us that 7,700 drafts had been sent out. That is entirely satisfactory, but I should like to know whether these 7,700 drafts are included in the total of 200,000. I will turn, if you will allow me, to what my noble friend very aptly designated the consideration of our military assets at home. Our available assets at home are put down at 98,000 Regulars, 12,000 Reservists, 77,000 Militia, 7,000 Yeomanry, and 215,000 Volunteers, making a grand total of 409,000—to use my noble friend's words, "armed men serving in this country." I look upon this as a most gratifying announcement, provided that the 409,000 men can be really correctly designated armed men serving in this country. As to the 98,000 Regulars, would it be an indiscreet question if I were to ask where they are and exactly what they consist of? We know that they include men who have been left behind by the battalions which have gone to the seat of war because they were unfit for service abroad. But I should like to know how many of these men or boys who were unfit for service abroad and were left at home are included among the 98,000 Regulars described as armed men serving in this country. I should also like to know, if the information can be given me, how many of all branches—cavalry, artillery, and infantry—could be paraded on any definite day, say next week, of these

  17
  98,000 men, the infantry fully and properly equipped, the cavalry with their men and horses, the artillery with their men, horses, and guns, and provided with transport. If we had information of that kind we should have something reliable to go upon, and should know how far the 98,000 Regulars remaining in this country are a valuable and realisable asset, and not a mere asset on paper. There appears to be, I do not say there is, a good deal of duplication. Twelve new battalions are to be permanently added to the Army. How are they to be created? Partly out of men left behind by battalions who have gone to the front, and partly by Reservists. It appears to be obvious that, so far as they are composed of men left behind belonging to other regiments and Reservists, they are not new battalions. The same remark applies to the new cavalry regiments and to the new batteries of artillery. The cavalry are to consist in the first place of the leavings of cavalry regiments at the seat of war and of Reservists; the batteries are to be created from a nucleus taken from existing batteries, from men left behind as unfit for service by batteries in South Africa, and of Reservists. It is obvious that, to the extent to which they are composed of a nucleus and of Reservists and of men left behind, these regiments, battalions and batteries are not new ones. Men are counted twice over. It is like taking five shillings out of one pocket, transferring them to another pocket, and claiming an asset of ten shillings, a process of doubtful probity in finance. The same duplication may occur with recruiting. Your Lordships were pleased to hoar that recruiting was very brisk. It would almost be an insult to compliment the nation on that fact, because the nation has only shown its natural spirit. But I should be glad to hear from the noble Marquess that in the number of recruits which he gave no duplication has occurred. As your Lordships know very well, men recruit into the Line direct and into the Militia direct, and they recruit out of the Militia into the Line. Unless the greatest care is taken in compiling the figures, men are likely to be counted twice, first on enlisting in the Militia, and secondly on passing from the Militia to the Line. I do not mean to say that this duplication has occurred, but it appears, on the face of the statement of the noble Marquess,
  18
  that it is exceedingly likely to have occurred. When the nation is asked to consider the national balance-sheet, the statement put before it by the Secretary of State ought to be of such a character that it would be passed by an accountant, but I am perfectly certain no chartered accountant in the world would pass the statement of my noble friend as reliable with regard to the available realisable military assets of the country. The estimate of my noble friend the Secretary of State for War as to the requirements for national defence was based upon Mr. Stanhope's Minute which laid it down that there should be a mobile army of 130,000 men, but that was after providing for the defence of India and the Colonies. Now, if I am not mistaken, we have drawn some 7,000 men from India, and we have drawn Aery largely from our garrisons in the Colonies, so that the proposal of Her Majesty's Government for providing for home defence is incomplete, judged by the standard of Mr. Stanhope's Minute, and must remain incomplete unless some provisions made to restore the military establishment in India and replace the troops which have been taken from the garrisons. I will now turn for one moment to the Militia. The Militia is 30,000 short of its establishment. That is not a very pleasant state of things to contemplate. My noble friend said he hoped, by offering various inducements, to bring up that force to its full establishment. I have not a single word to say against any of these inducements, but, as the noble Marquess admitted, whether the proposals of the Government will bring the force up to its full strength or not can only be conjectured. It is not altogether pleasing to reflect that the safety of our homos may depend upon the realisation of a mere conjecture. I cannot help thinking what a better position we should be in now if the Bill which my noble friend the Secretary of State brought in a year ago had passed through Parliament. I am not going to say anything on the subject of the ballot or compulsion of any kind. Her Majesty's Government have decided against the application of compulsion in any degree. Well, that may be perfectly wise. I am not going to anticipate what will be said on the subject on Tuesday next, further than to say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I greatly dislike the idea of conscription, resort to the ballot, or com-

  19
  pulsion. But, at the same time, I am hound to confess that if I try to analyse the causes of my dislike I think they are due rather to prejudice to the term than to any sound argument that can be raised against the general principle that, to a limited extent at any rate, every citizen is bound to act for the protection of the country. I should like to know what steps the noble Marquess intends to adopt if these conjectures are not fulfilled. How long are we to wait to see whether the Militia fills itself up to its proper establishment, and, if it does not, what steps will be taken? As to the Yeomanry, they are to be asked to devote one month to training. That is not to be compulsory, I believe, but they are to have an opportunity of coming out for a month's training. I do not believe that it is possible for the Yeomanry, as at present constituted, to devote a continuous month to training. In the same way the Volunteers are to be asked to give one month to training, and the Volunteer artillery three months. I have not the faintest doubt that both the artillery and infantry Volunteers will be perfectly willing to give up a month, or even three months, if it is possible; but, however willing they may be, it will be absolutely impossible for them to do so. A great number of our Volunteers, both artillery and infantry, are artisans and men of that class. To lose the services of many of his hands for such long periods would ruin employers. They could not carry on their business. I know a case, by no means exceptional, what may be termed a small manufacturer, one half of whose men are Volunteers. It would be impossible for him to spare the men for a month and some of them for three months. The men themselves, with families dependent upon them, could not possibly afford it, and their withdrawal in any case would dislocate the trade of the country. I feel perfectly certain that it would be less inconvenient if the training was compulsory, because the trade of the country would then gradually accommodate itself to the new conditions. The proposal of the Government is impracticable, and if carried out would destroy the Volunteer force. I hope the Government will provide more accommodation in the direction of rifle ranges. I do not at all agree with what fell from the noble Lord opposite, Lord Tweedmouth, on that point. I do agree with him that you can
  20
  partially train a man at a short range. You can teach him to aim and to acquire that co-ordination of brain, nerve, and muscle which enables him to pull the trigger without jerking his gun, but to make a skilful rifle shot who is to be really valuable in modern warfare a long-range is necessary. I do not agree with Lord Tweedmouth that the most effective rifle firing during the present war has been at short range. I gather entirely the opposite from the correspondence which I have read, which shows-that the lesson of the war is the great effectiveness of long distance rifle fire. Is not the difficulty of effective scouting which we have experienced explained by the fact that the Boers fire at such long distances that it is impossible for a scouting party to get near enough to obtain accurate information? What ought to be done is to provide short ranges wherever they can be used, and then when the men have acquired as much proficiency as can be obtained at short ranges they could be sent, not at their own expense, and with as little discomfort as possible, to go through a course of training at a long range. I was delighted with the statement, which I regard as the most hopeful in the whole of the Government's proposals, that we are to have a number of new batteries of field and horse artillery, and that the Volunteer artillery are to be rearmed with modern guns. I ventured the other day to say, Why not give the Militia artillery more modern weapons? and was told that the Militia artillery were garrison artillery. That is so; but is there any particular reason why they should always remain garrison artillery? Is there airy reason, except the-tangles of red tape, why the Militia should not contribute a certain number of field batteries to the mobile army? Even with the addition of these new batteries the Army will not be so over strong with artil that it would not be wise to use the trained gunners now existing in the Militia. I hope the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War will consider the advantage of allowing them a certain portion of field batteries. I do not know exactly what the armament of these new-batteries is to be. I think my noble friend said that it would consist of 15-pounders and the 4·7in. semi-mobile gun. It was stated in another place, by the Under Secretary of State for War, that the rate of fire of the semi-mobile gun

  21
  was nearly five per minute. These guns are not what are commonly called quick-firing guns, but they are, I suppose, fitted with an attachment which minimises or prevents recoil, and therefore can lie rapidly loaded and fired. I should greatly like to know, if it is a question upon which I can receive information, what is the normal rate of fire of the semi-mobile 4.7 in. guns as set out in the service instructions issued when this type of gun was adopted. I should like to know also whether any steps are to be taken to provide the Army with guns of heavier calibre, but capable of being tised in the field for defence. Is it not true that in South Africa the Army has had to filch from the Navy capable of competing against those used by the Boers? Are any steps being taken to supply this deficiency in the Army? There is no question about it that the Boers, in a most difficult country, do manage to move about guns of a size and weight which I presume our military authorities thought it was impossible to move in the field. Our military authorities must have known that the Boers possessed these guns, but did not anticipate that they could be used except in fortifications. I do not think this great question of artillery has received sufficient attention. Surely there can be no question that the lesson we have already learned through the disasters of this war is how potent a factor in future wars artillery and long range rifle fire must be. In fact, it is being brought home to us—very forcibly brought home to us—that inventive genius and mechanical art and science will be almost a determining factor in wars of the future. Physical courage, nerve, and endurance will always have their value, because they are at the bed rock of everything; but, to a degree that has never obtained before, the victory of war in the future will go to the side that makes the most intelligent use of inventive genius and of mechanical skill and science. I believe that in two respects we are as well situated as any country in the world. I do not think any country has foundries that are superior to ours. I feel confident no nation can turn out more efficient skilled workmen than our trained gunners, but in the highly technical manufacturing skill necessary for the most beautifully exact, minute portions which constitute the excellence of a perfect machine of destruction—one of
  22
  these modern guns—I believe this country is lamentably behind. The very highest inventive genius of the country and the very highest skill of a mechanical nature ought to be at the disposition of the Army. I doubt very much whether it is, and I should like to have seen some indication that efficient steps would be taken to secure for our Army all the advantages which the highest inventive genius and mechanical art can provide. I do not think I take a very gloomy view of the situation; on the contrary, I think I am rather inclined to take a sanguine view. I sincerely hope that the proposals. Her Majesty's Government have made may turn out to be quite sufficient, but I guns greatly doubt it. I feel that it would be far wiser to make preparations greatly in excess of what might be needed than to make preparations which may not be quite enough. The nation and the Empire realise the issues at stake. They know that with the present struggle the Empire stands or falls, and with it the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of all that the Empire holds in trust for humanity. Do the Government realise it? We may hope, we may suppose, we may expect, but we have no right to act on the hope, supposition, or expectation that no further complications may arise which may render infinitely more difficult the difficult task we have to perform. I cannot see in the proposals put forward—and I should not think that I was doing my duty if I did not say so—the provision of what seems to me adequate means to meet any difficulties and any eventualities which may possibly arise.
  *LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, I will address myself to one point, and one point only, which has been touched upon by the noble Earl, because I consider it is one of the most important that should be brought forward in connection with the proposals submitted by Her Majesty's Government. I refer to the question of the supply of large guns to the Army. When we first became aware that a conflict had actually broken out in South. Africa, the one thing that impressed itself most upon me was that the British army in South Africa did not possess a single gun of the proper calibre to meet the guns which the Boers had brought against them. We had to fall back on the Navy, and we all know how well the Navy has.

  23
  performed its work. But even now the army in the field have to rely to a large extent upon the support which is given them by the Naval Brigade. The large howitzer batteries which have gone out from Woolwich are not sufficiently numerous, and we are in the undignified position of being forced to retire from positions we have taken up because the Boer guns are superior to our own and have rendered untenable positions which we otherwise could have held. I think the Government might have told us more clearly than they have done what steps are being taken to remedy this state of things. I presume that the War Office were advised that the mobility of guns ceased when they were over forty-two cwt. and that the Boer guns could not be moved, and should not, therefore, be taken into account. If they were not so advised, why are we in our present predicament? The Boers, on the other hand, consulted experts who told them that these big guns could be mounted and moved and have shown them how to do it, with the result we all knew. I hope we shall have some assurance from the Government that this most important point is receiving attention. The mobility of these big guns is, I take it, a revelation to many people. One cannot help thinking, now their mobility has been demonstrated, what would be our position if we did become involved with other nations. If we had a war with France how many Creusot guns of large calibre should we find opposed to us, and what guns of equal power have we got to meet them? Or if we go to war with Germany how many large Krupp guns, and how is it proposed to meet them? And if we were at war with Russia what combination of Creusot and Krupp guns with large guns of Russian manufacture should we be confronted with? In any of these eventualities it would be unwise policy, even if it were possible, to indent on the nearest British man-of-war, to strip her of her guns and hurry them to the front in order to maintain our Army in the positions they had taken up. Unless we put ourselves, ill this respect, on a real, sound, and proper footing we shall cease to be able to give our Army that efficient support which it ought to have. I therefore, hope that her Majesty's Government is fully sensible of the importance of this subject, and that my noble friend fully realises the spirit of the old saying, which
  24
  was impressed upon both of us in our younger days—Fan est et ab hoste doceri.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I take this opportunity of expressing my profound disappointment at what I consider the inadequate proposals of the Government, and I desire in particular to express my disappointment at their summary rejection of the bare possibility of adopting the principle of compulsory enlistment for the purpose of home defence. I believe I am correct in stating that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War has admitted that, in a case of grave emergency, such a thing would possibly prove necessary, and I think it must strike many people that such a time of emergency has already arrived. With practically the whole of our professional Army locked up in South Africa in an effort to subdue the forces of two petty Republics, when we are obliged to draw on our last resources in order to supplement their numbers, and when it is apparent to everyone that if we were involved in difficulties in some other part of the world it would be impossible to despatch an adequately equipped expedition, I say a period of great national emergency has arisen. It is apparent that some serious effort should be made. Surely it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to consult with responsible leaders of the Opposition and devise a rational scheme of home defence. If it wore possible to effect such a combination, and if the suggestions made by this combined body were supported by the best military opinion, I believe the country would be ready, if required, to face the burden of compulsory service for national defence. I must express my deep regret that the Government have not thought fit to try the experiment. The only argument I have heard advanced against compulsory service is that it is unpopular. Naturally it would not be popular; in no country is it popular. Every civilised country and semi-barbarous countries like Turkey have boon obliged to adopt this principle, and to say that we are so superior to all foreign nations as to be able to do voluntarily what they are only able to effect by compulsion is surely a justification for that charge of national arrogance which is so frequently brought against us I by our critics. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in a speech he

  25
  delivered a few days ago, commented upon one peculiarity of the British people, namely, that they insisted upon eating their cake and having it. Can there be any clearer instance of that than what we now witness? At present the cry of everybody is for expansion. The Government, whether Conservative or Radical, is being constantly invited and encouraged to assume further liabilities in every quarter of the globe, yet, in spite of that, when a common-sense proposal is made that before anything else should be done, our national defence should lie established on a firm basis, it is scouted as foolish. It certainly appears to me, although I may be singular in this respect, that if the proposals of the Government are carried out they will constitute a great act of injustice. For this reason. Ever since the inception of the Volunteer movement the burden of home defence has been undertaken by a very minute fraction of the population—in round figures, by some 400,000 men out of a population of 40,000,000. All these years the burden of home defence has fallen on these 400,000 men, and, according to the Government proposals, it is intended to perpetuate this injustice ad infinitum. Why are the rest of the thirty-eight or thirty-nine millions living in this country to be relieved of their share of the burden? Why are those who have hitherto given their time and money to this purpose to be called upon, not merely to do what they have done in the past, but to do a great deal more, not to double the services they have rendered, but to quadruple them? I do not claim to speak for more than one branch of the Auxiliary forces. I am connected with the Yeomanry, and, so far as the proposals affect the Yeomanry, I confess that I look upon them with great alarm. I can hardly conceive that the invitation which is to be addressed to them to perform four times the work they have done hitherto, and to increase their expenses fourfold, will meet with a favourable response. I confess I take an extremely despondent view of what their answer is likely to be. I wish to reiterate my deep disappointment that the Government have missed a magnificent opportunity, that they have not risen to the level their supporters and many of their opponents expected of them, and that, instead of adopting a bold and permanent plan, which would
  26
  have placed the country on a safe and firm footing, they have been content with temporary makeshifts, which can do little or nothing to remedy the evils which are admitted on all sides to exist.
  LORD BLYTHSWOOD: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War on the large force which he has been able to place in South Africa. I do not think many Members in this House would have believed that we could have done it in. the time. I wish particularly to draw the attention of your Lordships to what we have got to face. It is no use beating, about the bush. We have got a very hard and a very difficult job to carry out, and if we succeed in it, that is all we can do. We have to support between 150,000 and 160,000 men at the Cape: we have to keep up garrisons in Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, and Egypt; and we have to replace the 10,000 men withdrawn from India. That is the position, and I cannot see in the proposals of the noble Marquess that any provision has been made for meeting it satisfactorily. We are told that there are 98,000 Regulars in this country, but in reality this number is made up of men too old for active service and of others too young to be of any use. Recruiting, it is true, is very brisk, but I see the standard has been reduced to such an extent that a man can join the colours who is not as tall as his own ride. How can we place these boys against grown men? No wonder some of them are taken prisoners and are now in Pretoria. We must look this matter in the face. How are we to provide the men we want, men of certain stature, of physique, and of a certain age—not under twenty? They should be between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five. How are we to provide them? We are asked to do so by the ordinary means of recruiting, but we all know very well that that cannot do it. Is there no other way? Perhaps by a patriotic call from the highest in the land to her people you might bring out 100,000 men. I think perhaps you might. I should be glad to see it done. I cannot say that I am enamoured of compulsion in any form: but when the country is face to face with a crisis which may be its utter ruin, I do not think I should be doing my duty to my Queen and country if I did not say that I have changed my mind and should

  27
  vote for the adoption of compulsory service. I honestly do not think the country has ever, at any time, been in such a serious condition as it is now. Our colonies have come forward in the most magnificent manner. Why? Because to a great extent they knew that the mother country was strong; they admired her, and they knew that united they would be able to stand, but they find that we are not even able to protect ourselves, and that we will not ask the manhood of the country to come forward and do their duty. Unless the men of the country show their readiness and willingness to bear their share of the burden of defence, the colonies may refuse to implicate themselves in the quarrels of Great Britain, and shut themselves up in their insular magnificence. Australia, New Zealand, and the other great colonies, of which we are so proud, will, in their own self-interest, leave us, and then what will become of the population in these islands? Where will they get the trade that will enable them to buy the food which has to come in continually for them? It is terrible to contemplate what may happen: yet all this may be averted if you ask the country to come forward patriotically and to take, what every other nation has had to take, compulsory military service. I do not think there is anything very difficult in it. All classes of men must be treated alike; there must be no exceptions. At all events, the class which usually sits in this House have shown that they are perfectly willing to serve their country wherever they are wanted, and it is in the knowledge of all of us that many Members of this House have already gore out to South Africa. The objection to compulsion will not come from them, I am sure, and if their example is given I am certain that the workmen of the country will answer to the call. They have always been led by the intelligence of the country, and they will be led by it still. I am sure that your appeal to them will not go unanswered. If the Government do not ask the country to help themselves, and give them the means of doing it, instead of pottering on with these permissive measures, I am sure some serious disasters will come, and the responsibility will rest on those who have shirked their duty.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I will not interpose very long in
  28
  this debate, but I think it is not well that, on such a subject as this and at such a time, the discussion should be confined to one side of the House. The benches on this side do not indeed supply any fertile material for the continuance of the discussion, but that is, perhaps, all the more reason why anyone who is not unwilling should attempt to do so. I am anxious, in the first place, to associate myself entirely, not with the remedy that the noble Lord who has just sat down has proposed, for that is a matter for more consideration than we can give it on an occasion of this kind, but I am anxious to associate myself with him entirely in his view of the gravity of the crisis in which we stand and of the total inadequacy of the proposals of the Government to meet that crisis. What is our position? I remember the other night that the noble Marquess opposite, in setting forth his scheme in a manner so lucid and so persuasive, seemed to complain a little that certain critics had said that this country was denuded of its Army and its Militia. I do not know of anyone who has said that except one authority, and that a very high authority. That is the First Lord of the Admiralty. At least twice in his speech ho made use of the expression that this island was denuded of its troops and its Militia. That, surely, is a very grave state of affairs. The noble Marquess combatted the statement, which, I think, he had forgotten was made by his own immediate colleague, and he brought forward some figures which I noted at the time, and which the noble Earl has criticised in more detail than I shall be willing or competent to do, but which inspired me, I confess, with no confidence in the War Office. He has produced a force, on paper, within these islands of 409,000 men. That in itself is a force which should command respect even in a great military nation; but how is that body composed? It is composed of 98,000 Regular troops. These Regular troops, I suspect, cannot stand a very searching analysis at the present moment. They are, I suspect, men who are too young to be sent to the front, and men who are required for the depôts, and in any case there is a question to be asked about them. We are going to send 50,000 men out at once, not before they are needed, to reinforce our troops in South Africa. Are these 50,000 coming from the 98,000

  29
  Regular troops, or are these 98,000 Itegular troops left after the 50,000 have been sent out? The next item is 12,000 Reserves. Have they been called out or are they at home? Then there are 7,000 Yeomanry. There are, further, 77,000 Militia. These, as I understand, cannot at present be embodied because we have no barracks to put them in And, last of all, we have 215,000 Volunteers. Now, my Lords, is not this counting noses and endeavouring to blind ourselves to the facts? I have the highest respect for the Volunteers. They have given to their country their time and their energy, which have not, I understand, been always very cordially requited. But can these 215,000 Volunteers by any stretch of the imagination be called soldiers in the scientific sense of the term? It is perfectly certain that they cannot be. And why is it perfectly certain they cannot be? It is so on the showing of the noble Marquess himself, who recommends that they shall have a month's training, or in the case of Volunteer artillery three months training, when the weather permits. The weather obviously does not permit oat present. How has that proposal been received? I venture to say with the unanimous condemnation of all the people whom it affects and concerns. I venture to say there is no large employer of labour in this country who sanctions such a proposal or believes it to be workable. I will take one testimony. I like always to quote from colleagues or some ardent supporters of the Government. I will take the Scotsman, a well known and respected paper, and more blindly devoted to the Government than any newspaper in these islands. The Scotsman sent a commissioner among all the employers in Edinburgh, hoping, I presume, to receive some benediction on the proposals of the Government, and possibly not without encouragement to some result. The prophets cursed the scheme instead of blessing it. They said it was hopelessly impracticable; that it could not be carried out, and that it would not be carried out. That is what becomes of making your 315,000 Volunteers efficient. So much for defence. You are going to send out 50,000 men to South Africa. South Africa is a ravenous maw that demands many victims. You have now been at war since October 12th. During that time—the auspicious news of
  30
  this morning makes us hope that there may be yet better news to come—during that time you have been fighting on your own territories, you have not been able to advance an inch, you have performed glorious feats of arms, but feats of arms that have been absolutely unproductive. At the end of this time, when you are sending out 50,000 men to South Africa, you cannot but recollect that you have been sending out men by tens of thousands ever since this war began, and if these 50,000 men are exhausted and you want 50,000 more, what then? What then? "Oh," you say, "it is indelicate to say these things. You are laying bare the nakedness of the country before foreign nations, and they may take advantage of it." My Lords, foreign nations know our position quite as well as we do, and better than some of us; better, if I may judge from the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, than Her Majesty's Government does. That is the position as regards the proposals of Her Majesty's Government with respect to men. There is one point on which I should like to ask a question, not of the noble Marquess, but of the member of the Government, whoever he may be, who represents the Board of Admiralty in this House. Are you going to do anything with regard to the Fleet in this critical position in which we stand? Is the Fleet going to be strengthened or to be mobilised? These are not things that can be discussed in a leisurely and debating fashion, spreading over fortnights or months, or even longer than that. The crisis is urgent, the danger is upon you, and then you come to this House with proposals that in the month of May, when the weather allows, you will put the Volunteers, if they are willing to go there, under canvas, and then these islands and the Empire are safe. The position as regards South Africa is that we have been making war there for four months; we have never been, until this week, able to advance an inch into the enemy's country, and the enemy has been constantly and victoriously employed on ours. But I do not keep my eye on South Africa alone. Can any man entrusted with the destinies of this Empire keep his eye on South Africa alone? South Africa is a very important part of the Empire, no doubt, but you have interests and engagements in every part of the world. You are known, on the confession of your own

  31
  Minister, to be denuded of troops at home. You are sending every available man and gun that you can spare to South Africa. What is the amicable disposition of foreign nations on which you can reckon, so that we shall be left uninterrupted to pursue this war? I know there is nothing so unpopular, nothing so distasteful to the British public, and yet nothing so salutary, as to remind them of the opinion of foreign countries. But whether pleasant and salutary or not, in the crisis in which we are placed it is absolutely necessary to take notice of it. Where is the benevolent disposition of foreign countries on which, I suppose, the Government may be able to reckon when they make partial and incomplete military proposals to the country I do not know. I confess I watch the situation in Europe and elsewhere more closely than I watch the situation in South Africa. I know that last December Her Majesty's Government made public overtures to two great Powers for an alliance—Germany and the United States—and those overtures, as far as we can gather from the proceedings in the German and American Parliaments, were not received with any such cordiality as to encourage Her Majesty's Government to pursue them. You had in France a debate the other day in which, I think, the French Government took a friendly and conciliatory course, but in which, certainly, the tone of the discussion was not likely to encourage the people of this country in the belief that that friendliness would bear any great or alarming strain. Well, in Russia there is no Parliament, and I suppose that is a constitution which the noble Marquess would envy. But, at any rate, we see circumstances in Russia which make us pause. The ancient empire of Persia has been the witness, in these last days, to events to which England once would have had something to say, but which appear to pass without any protest from England, and perhaps without the possibility of any protest from England. When you see a want of amity on the part of foreign Powers, when yon see transactions going on in which this country is interested and in which we have no longer' a hand, I say it i may be given to any of us, however lighthearted we may be, to pause and to ask the Government to take a large grasp of the situation and to make pro-
  32
  posals to the country which are adequate to that situation. There are two divisions in which, I think, any such proposals, naturally group themselves—those which are permanent and which are great questions of reorganisation, which I freely admit should not be discussed now, and those which are temporary and which are suited to a great emergency like the present, and which should be as large and sweeping as you please. The main proposition with regard to the emergency—one which seems to me to realise the greatness of the situation—is that for calling on old soldiers between twenty-five and forty-five years of age, and the noble Marquess estimated that there were 170,000 men to come under the colours once more. True, from that source he did not anticipate above 20,000 men. That is a very slight basis on which to rely at a moment like this; but, at any rate, it is a practical proposal, an emergency proposal, and one which I for one welcome as a very timely proposal. Now, my Lords, in that word "timely" lies a very great part of the question. The Government, to my thinking, have never been timely, and yet the essence of all modern warfare is that you should be, if possible, beforehand with your enemy. War was declared on. October 11th, I think, and since that time you have been sending troops to the front. But immediately after that time, and at that time, the burgher soldiers were in possession of your territory. They did know that time was the essence of the situation, and that, it seems to me, is what Her Majesty's Government have never yet realised and do not realise now. When this little scheme is exhausted—because it is a little scheme, and a great part of it cannot be realised for some months yet—how do you know you will not be compelled to bring forward another? This scheme has already been proved to be too late in the day, and later on you will be compelled to produce another scheme of a much larger, of a much bolder character, and one for which, I believe, the country was and is perfectly prepared. We have had one great example in this matter—the noble Lord who spoke last, I think, alluded to it—the example of the United States. The United States, in their great civil war, did not in time realise what a big: business they had on hand. The

  33
  first call of Mr. Lincoln for troops was for 75,000 men. His Secretary for War, if I remember rightly, was anxious that the Cabinet at which that decision was arrived at should call for 500,000 men. The representative of the Treasury, if I. remember rightly, objected to so large a call, and so a call was made in April for 75,000 men, and in December the United States army amounted to 669,000; and by the time the war was completed how large do you suppose was the number of men that the United States had put in the field? Two and three-quarter millions! I do not wish to be misunderstood. If I leave these figures as I have stated them I shall be told, either by someone who follows me in debate or by some critic in the newspapers, that I am wanting you to raise 660,000 men, or 2,750,000 men. I want nothing of the kind. I want timely measures, and my view is that, if the United States had called for 500,000 men instead of 75,000, they might never have needed any more soldiers at all. But you say, "This is not a great crisis like that. That was a matter of life and death." I say this is a matter of life and death. I completely adopt the words of the noble Lord opposite. I do not think the Government have the faintest notion of how in the country, in the streets, in any place where men congregate, the feeling of crisis, of overburdening crisis, of constant danger is present to the minds of men. This is a matter of life and death. Suppose—take the hypothesis for one moment, though we will not admit it as anything more for a single instant—that you should not be victorious in this war. Why, you lose South Africa. You could not show your face in South Africa again. If you lose South Africa you lose the principal column of your Empire, you lose the most important base you have outside these islands. But if you lose South Africa you lose a great deal more than that. The noble Lord—I again quote his testimony—pointed out that, this Empire resting largely on prestige, these colonies that have come so enthusiastically to our support have done so because they believe they are associating themselves with the most powerful Empire the world has ever seen. If you deprive them of that feeling the life of your Empire is threatened. You will be shut up in these islands, one of which I fear does not particularly love you, and your Empire outside these
  34
  islands will break away from you, and where it is without defence it will fall a prey to other nations. In the meantime, you alone with your Fleet will be in the midst of a Europe which his many scores to pay off, and will be only too ready to pay them off. If that be not a crisis, if that be not a matter of life and death, I know not what is.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, the noble Earl who opened this debate referred to the number of men the Government proposed to raise. There are two other points which, in my opinion, are of almost equal importance—namely, the time at which these men will be available and the time at which they will be efficient. I would ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken now at once to secure that these men will have every opportunity of making themselves thoroughly efficient, and also what date they think the men will be available. The prospect of looking forward to something in the spring, when the weather permits, is not one which, in the crisis in which we stand to-day, the country will for one moment accept. I do not myself take the gloomy view of the noble Earl, and I cannot persuade myself that we have really come to that point when nothing but compulsory enlistment will provide the men we want. I believe there has never been a time in the history of the country when the spirit of the nation has been raised as it is to-day. Through the latter part of the recess—during November and December—wherever one went one heard the same opinion expressed, that when Parliament met the country would hear what the Government were going to do to provide forces to meet the emergency. Parliament met, but no discussion took place until this week. The nation remained, as it were, in uncertainty for a fortnight longer, and now the Government have given us a list of problematical men, who may, within two or three months, possibly be available, but whether they will be efficient or not we do not know. I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that the crisis in which we stand to-day is a very grave one. Our colonies look to us, and we look to the colonies. Together we stand or fall, and if it be proved that this country cannot protect our colony in South Africa, and that

  35
  we must give way to a Government which is at once corrupt, ignorant, and tyrannical, the greatness of England will be largely diminished. There is only one practical suggestion I would make as regards the efficiency of the men we are to raise. Can we not provide in every town and considerable village throughout the country short ranges such as Lord Tweedmouth has referred to? It is a fact, which I think no rifleman will dispute, that what takes the longest time to learn is to pull the trigger without moving the rifle, and that is a thing which may be learned in a very confined space. If the Government could institute throughout the country short ranges with rifles of the Army pattern, so that the elements of rifle shooting at all events might be acquired, it would give great satisfaction. Above all things I would implore the Government to waste no time. If four mouths ago we had done one quarter of what we are doing now we should not have had a twentieth part of the danger which now threatens us. That no foresight has been displayed is proved by the selection of Ladysmith, lying in a basin, commanded by surrounding hills, and the piling in there of supplies amounting to a million sterling without taking the trouble to have a map of any accuracy made of the hills which command the road along which its supplies must go. Why were not the tunnels on the north blown up, and why were the northern railways allowed to remain, forming an absolutely easy and unbroken communication for the Boers? These things have happened in the past. We ask ourselves, What will happen in the future I The position is a very grave one, and i hope the Government will wake up to it. I hope we may come out of it without the risks and the dangers which many of us foresee, but of one thing I am confident, and that is that nothing will break the spirit of the nation. The more reverses there are the harder will the nation set its teeth, and victory will follow if only the men are provided.
  *LORD LAMINGTON: May I interpose for one moment before the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War replies. In his statement of last Monday he referred to the intention of giving commissions to Colonial officers. I would ask whether something more could not be done. There was a proposal
  36
  some time ago to have an interchange of regiments between this country and the colonies. The advisability of that may for military reasons be questionable, but there is no doubt that great advantage would accrue from an interchange of officers and non-commissioned officers. I think that after what we have seen of the work of the Colonial forces, and what they are capable of doing, the present is an opportune moment to endeavour to bring into closer touch with one another the component forces of the different parts of the Empire. They have displayed the greatest adaptability and gallantry, and have proved what efficient service can be rendered by soldiers who without much barrack square training are able to use their intelligence. The present war has shown the value of such citizen soldiers, and whilst the noble Earl opposite disparages the length of training it is proposed to give to Volunteer forces, it is probable that the methods of training are more faulty than the period allotted. There is another reason why this would be a fitting time to include the colonies in any rearrangement you may be making of our military system. In a short time your Lordships will have before you for your full, and, I trust,, favourable consideration, the scheme for the federation of the various Australian colonies, by means of which greater uniformity of laws will be established, fiscal barriers removed, and by means of-which the military forces of Australia will especially be strengthened and put on a more effective footing; and I would ask if it would not be well to consider-whether the present is not the time to bring about greater cohesion amongst all the forces of the Empire when the forces of Australia are, so to speak, in a state of fusion and there is a re-organisation pending at home. It was remarkable that even amongst men best acquainted with the subject the opinion was freely expressed that the federation of the Australian colonies would not take place without outward pressure. The judgment and foresight of the people of Australia, however, have not waited for that, and it is a coincidence that at the same time that they are entering upon a larger sphere of their own national life they are also sharing the obligations of the Empire and taking up arms in its support. It is of good augury that synchronous with a political movement that

  37
  will enlarge her aspirations and add to her defensive strength, Australia, peopled by those of our own blood, should give us of that blood freely and voluntarily. This two-fold event can but strengthen the ties which bind our Empire. And it would be a further aid in this direction were the Government to mark their appreciation of the services of the Colonists by endeavouring to bring them into closer touch with the Imperial army, when revising oar military system, and this without injuring local action or initiative.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have been again taken to task this evening because our proposals are what has been termed experimental or conjectural. I ventured to say to your Lordships the other night that unless we were prepared to resort to some measure of coercion we could only trust to inducements, and so long as you only trust to inducements the effect produced must necessarily be a matter of conjecture. It is impossible to say when you offer certain financial terms whether those terms will be sufficient to tempt those to whom they are offered, nor is it possible to say to what extent those persons will be influenced by that wave of patriotic enthusiasm which is, I am glad to say, passing over the people of these islands. My Lords, the fact remains that those who object to our proposals because they are of an experimental kind must make up their minds to adopt the only other alternative, that, namely, which is to be found in some form of compulsion. I understood the noble Earl below the gangway to say that, while he accepted the views so strongly expressed from the benches behind me as to the inadequacy of our proposals, he did not associate himself with the remedy which had been proposed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I said it would require more consideration than could be given to it this evening.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But what is the remedy which the noble Earl proposes?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: When I am Secretary of State for War, with a staff of experts, I will tell the noble Marquess.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I That is a very good debating answer. I think we are entitled to at least ask him to indicate what other directions there are than those in which we are attempting; to work. And the criticism which I make on the speeches addressed to the House this evening is that, with the one exception of the suggestion in favour of the Militia ballot, no useful suggestion has been made to us as to the means by which we might produce a larger armed force than that which we contemplate as I the result of the present proposals. The noble Earl below the gangway referred to one step the importance of which I think has not been sufficiently recognised. I refer to the offer we; intend to make to that large body of ex-soldiers who are to be found among the civil population—the offer of service at home for a term of one year only. We believe that a large number of these men will be likely to accept the conditions of service which we: are ready to offer to them, and if we are successful in obtaining a number of these men, surely that is, to use the expression of my noble friend, Lord Dunraven, a valuable military asset. It is quite true that I mentioned 20,000 as the number on which me might fairly count, but I am not at all prepared to say that that number may not be very much larger. We are in this difficulty, that if we put a low estimate on the result we are told that our proposals are trivial and do not rise to the importance of the occasion; if, on the other hand, we credit ourselves with a liberal measure of success, we are told that we are over-sanguine, and that, our proposals are mere matter of conjecture. The noble Earl who spoke first found fault with us because we had said nothing about measures for the permanent improvement of the Army, for the improvement of the War Office, for improvement in the strategy and tactics of the Army, and for revision of the proportion between the different arms of service; but then, having made that complaint, he went on to say—I thought with great justice—that these were organic changes which we could not possibly be expected to undertake at a moment like the present. I think that is a view which is held by the greater portion of the public; but let me say as emphatically as I can that Her Majesty's Government recognise, and to the fullest extent, that there are great

  39
  and important lessons to be learnt from: the experience of a war like this, and it is our intention to take those lessons to heart and profit by them. And let me add this also, with regard to some complaints which have been made as to the conduct of the operations, whether at home or abroad, that we certainly do not shrink from the fullest inquiry into all these events, provided that inquiry takes place at a time when it will not impede or interfere with those who are responsible for the conduct of military affairs in this country. My noble friend asked me several questions with reference to the figures of which I made use in my statement. I have been asked whether the 50,000 men to whom I referred as being either on their way to or under orders for South Africa were an addition to the number which I mentioned as having been sent out during the months of October, November, December, and January. Of those 50,000 men some have gone, and I have no doubt some of them would be included in the number I mentioned as having gone out in the month of January. But these 50,000 men are not men whom we are going to send out in the remote future; they are men already under orders and will be despatched within, I imagine, the next few weeks. I mentioned this because there seemed to be an impression that we were doing nothing, and that the stream of troops which had been poured into South Africa during the winter was going to be allowed to dry up suddenly. That is not the case. Up to the present Lord Roberts has not asked us for more than the troops ordered to go out, but we have other troops in readiness, and if he asks for them we shall send them. As to the 200,000 men I referred to as the force which would be in South Africa by the time these reinforcements reach the seat of war, of course they do not include the killed or missing. Allowance has been made for those. The noble Lord next asked me if I included the drafts which had been sent out. I did include them. Drafts have been sent out to make good the casualties. With regard to the figure of 110,000 which I gave to the House as the number of Regular soldiers still in the country, it includes eight regiments of cavalry, twenty batteries of artillery, and, I think, seventeen battalions of infantry.' It includes besides a certain number of men at the depôts, but not the permanent staff of
  40
  auxiliary forces, and a certain number of Reservists who have not yet been called up to join their battalions.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: May I ask if the 50,000 who are to be sent out are included in this number?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No. The 50,000 include a certain number of Militia who are going out. The 110,000 are all Regulars.
  *LORD WENLOCK: Are the eight regiments of cavalry fully horsed?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Household Cavalry are not fully horsed, but we intend to horse them fully. A noble Earl suggested that I counted some of my men twice over, and he cited as an instance the twelve new battalions which I told him were to be composed partly of Reservists and partly of young soldiers belonging to other battalions of the same regiment. It is perfectly true that to the extent to which those battalions are so composed those battalions are not an addition to the Army, but they are an addition to the number of organised units of the Army, and that is a point of some importance. But I do not include the twelve new battalions in my total of 400,000 men. It is suggested there might have been similar duplication in the matter of recruits. The figures I gave had reference entirety to the recruits of the Line and had no reference to Militia recruits. I was asked several questions by noble Lords with regard to guns. I heard with regret the statement made by a noble Lord (Lord Wenlock) that in his belief this country had fallen lamentably behind other countries in the matter of artillery. I did not know that the question as to the quality of artillery was to be raised this evening, otherwise I should have been prepared to discuss it if my noble friend wished it. I may say to-night, however, that, having paid some attention to the matter, I do not believe there is the slightest foundation for the charge that, either in regard; to field artillery or in regard to heavier arms, this country has been left behind by other countries. I believe, on the contrary, that our guns, comparing them with other guns of the same date, are fully able to hold their own. The gun which we placed in the hands of the field artillery in 1896 was, I believe, as good

  41
  a field gun as any gun in any service at the time. The new field gun which is now under manufacture for the new batteries is, I believe, a gun in the design of which the most modern improvements have been included, and which need not fear comparison with any gun that can be produced to compete with it. When I hear these assertions made that our guns have been outclassed by the guns opposed to them, I ask on what evidence does that statement rest? On the contrary, I find throughout the reports of the engagements which have taken place in South Africa continual reference to the fact that our field artillery has shown its superiority, and in action has silenced the field artillery of the enemy.
  *LORD WENLOCK: My reference was addressed solely to the larger form of guns, and not to the field artillery.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord suggests that we should have supplied Sir George White's army with heavy semi-mobile guns. I can tell the noble Lord that Sir George White's force was equipped as a mobile field force, and it is not usual either in this country or, I believe, in any other country, to supply a mobile field force with guns of that description. I believe that the problem of discovering a gun which shall be at once a fairly mobile gun and also a gun of great power and range is engaging the attention of our artillerists and artillerists on the Continent; but it is not a problem solved yet, and Sir George White's force have the full equipment of artillery which a force of that kind would naturally have furnished to it. When you come to oppose field guns of the class which Sir George White has with him to heavy siege guns brought by rail from Pretoria, it is clear that the small gun will be outclassed by the largo one; but I do not find any evidence to show that, gun for gun, our artillery is behind the artillery of other countries. What we are at present doing is this. We are adding to the equipment of our Army corps a brigade division of howitzers in addition to the full complement of field guns. Another noble Lord animadverted on the inadequacy of the proposals made with regard to the training of the Volunteers. I think the complaint is not so much as to their inadequacy as that we are insisting upon conditions so onerous that
  42
  the Volunteer force would not be likely to submit to them. I think there has been some misapprehension with regard to these proposals for training Volunteers. It is quite true that the period of one month was mentioned. I am not quite sure whether I mentioned it as the period for which training might go on. But it was not our intention that this training should be an annual training. It was, on the contrary, an emergency training special to this year'. Nor did we intend that it should be obligatory on all Volunteers to spend the whole of that month in camp. We desire that the conditions should be as elastic as possible, made to suit the convenience of different corps or of different men within the corps. I think it is quite likely, for example, that if there were a camp open to the corps for a month you might find men very glad to go into camp for a half or two-thirds of that time for training. We shall, at any rate, do our best to suit the convenience of the Volunteer force, and we shall make it our business to ascertain from the commanding officers of Volunteer corps what are the conditions to which their men would most readily submit. There was a suggestion made with regard to the Militia artillery. I think it was to the effect that although the greater part of the Militia artillery is told off for duty in fortresses it might be desirable to give power to the Militia artillery to train with field guns, and thereby render the force qualified to act as field artillery. That is a suggestion that seems to me not unreasonable, and I should be glad to have it considered. With regard to the general scope of our proposals, I regret that some of your Lordships seem to think that they are not sufficiently large for the occasion. To me it seems, using the materials which we have ready to hand, that they are proposals which should enable us to continue to send adequate reinforcements to the theatre of war, and also to place our home Army in a state of sufficient efficiency for the defence of these islands.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think that one of the peculiar features of this debate has been the fact that noble Lords who have taken part in it have almost without exception expressed themselves as being dissatisfied with the proposals which the Government

  43
  has made. This expression of opinion cannot be ascribed to any party feeling; it must be ascribed to the deep conviction of every one of the noble Lords who has expressed that view. I will refer also to the remarkable speech made by my noble friend Lord Rosebery, who put the matter, I think, most wisely, on the widest ground. I will not enlarge much on the topic which he has presented far better than I could to the House; but I cannot help saying that personally, and speaking with some knowledge of our relations with foreign Powers generally, I feel all the dangers of the situation quite as strongly as my noble friend. I see all around us a temper displayed by our neighbours which must make every thoughtful man pause and reflect m the conditions of the situation in which we find ourselves. It is useless to conceal from ourselves that fact. There is one particular point which was not referred to by my noble friend, but which is always very present to my mind, and which, I am sure, is fully appreciated by the noble Marquess who has just spoken—I mean the ever present question of our Indian frontier. I am not now ascribing to Russia—I should be very sorry to do it—direct designs to attack us in India, but the noble Marquess knows as well as I do how unstable is the position of that frontier. He knows as well as I do that one event—I hope it is by no means near—namely, the death of the Ameer of Afghanistan and the consequences that may follow—must always be present to the mind of everyone who has had any connection on the one hand with India and on the other hand with foreign affairs. Although I do not ascribe any direct hostile intentions to Russia at the present moment, I cannot overlook the fact that there is going on a movement of troops in that direction which, if not menacing, shows at least that the possibilities of the future are never absent from the mind of the Russian Government. While I honour the peaceful intentions of the present ruler of Russia, I must point out to your Lordships that even such a ruler as that has not entire power over questions of this kind. There are in Russia three powerful motives which always actuate the Russian Government in their conduct of affairs. One of these is the power of the Orthodox Church of Russia; the other is the strong national Slav feeling which exists throughout the nation;
  44
  and the third is the Army. No Emperor, however powerful, can afford to disregard the views and the opinions which permeate the Army; and there might easily arise a state of things when, peaceful as might be the intentions of the ruler of the Empire, he might find it extremely difficult to resist the pressure put upon him. I ask you to suppose—and we must take into our consideration conjectures not only as to what our force may be, but also as to what may be required of it—that this great question of the Indian frontier were to be raised. You have in India a garrison never too largo, and at this moment diminished by 10,000 men. Where are you to find the troops—seasoned troops they must be—in case of emergency to reinforce your Army in India? There will always be a feeling of insecurity, and in the present condition of things a feeling amounting almost to alarm. There is also one other department of the Empire, as I suppose I must now call it, and a not unimportant one—the Soudan. It is more than a year ago that we had a discussion on that subject. I then ventured to say that, whilst I did not deny that, in the position in which the Government were placed with respect to their responsibilities in Egypt, it was probably impossible for them not to make an advance to reconquer the Soudan, yet it gave rise to very grave reflections on consideration of the heavy responsibilities which it brought with it. The other day we had some indications of what might happen; but I trust that at the present time the alarm may have subsided. That is precisely the point which I wish to bring out—that if you have a large continental possession garrisoned by men raised from the people of the country who are all Mohammedans—if you have to hold in that way territory of vast extent, inhabited by a very warlike population, where, as I know from the best authority, white troops cannot be stationed for any length of time, then, according to all precedents, there may some day be a serious danger of mutiny, unless you are able very rapidly to send troops from Egypt to support it. Well, now, is the Government satisfied that if such an emergency should occur we could meet it? It has been pointed out by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in language far more impressive than I can command, how we have heaped heavy new responsibilities on the Empire; and responsibili-

  45
  ties of a new kind, because they cannot be met simply by our stronger naval forces. You cannot send a fleet to Khartum or to Afghanistan; and that is what presses upon the mind of every man in this country. How are we to discharge these great responsibilities, which do not press less heavily upon us because we have the terrible additional responsibity of the war in which we are now engaged? The noble Marquess said that the complaint was that the scheme of the Government was to a large extent conjectural. Some of the dangers, no doubt, are also conjecture but are we to place ourselves in this position—that if the hypothetical dangers turn out to be real (and there is a possibility of it, beyond a doubt) we must rest content with conjectural means to meet them? We want to know this from the Government, and we have a right to know it. Are the Government as a whole, looking to all these considerations, which are felt deeply throughout the country, satisfied on their own responsibility that their conjectures have at all events some substantial foundation? Are they satisfied that they can within a reasonable time provide such a force as is necessary to discharge the responsibilities of the Empire'? But when the Government say that they cannot tell us what will be the result of their measures, they leave us in a state of conjecture and apprehension—apprehension which we cannot disguise. In saying this I am not speaking as a party man at all. I am simply speaking from my deep feeling, as an Englishman, that there is a danger of a remarkable kind pressing upon us, and that the Government have not risen to the full height of the responsibilities of their position.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl thinks that the kind of speech which he has just delivered is the one which is most valuable to the country in the present circumstances. A more gloomy collection of lugubrious vaticinations I never heard. I am sorry that I cannot speak as freely as the noble Earl; but I am headed off from questions on the discussion of which he very frankly and freely engaged. I cannot enter upon the character of the Russian Government, or of the strings which guide it, or the
  46
  course which it is likely to take. I cannot discuss the health of the Ameer of Afghanistan. I have not lately had any account of it; but I have every reason to believe that it is as satisfactory as we could wish; but of course nobody's health gets more satisfactory as years roll on. In the same way, with respect to whether our' forces are adequate for our work in South Africa, and whether, in respect of what has been done, we are liable to censure or not—whether it is true, as my noble friend said, that we have always been too late, that we have neglected opportunities which we might have taken—these are all matters on which, if my words did not go beyond this room, I should gladly accept the challenge of the noble Earl. But we have been told, and told very rightly, that we cannot discuss matters which led to the outbreak of the war, or which relate to the conduct of it, without full inquiry which would apportion responsibility where it ought to fall, and give an opportunity to all men to defend their position. I am shut off from discussing those questions altogether. I am shut off also from many of the foreign considerations which the noble Lord has thought it right to raise. I do not think even that the condition of the Soudan is a matter which I am bound to discuss at the present moment, except to say that it has been the subject of much exaggeration and of very interested exaggeration. But as far as we know—guided as we are by judgment of exceptional value—we need not apprehend any danger from that quarter. The noble Lord quoted words of mine which Sir William Harcourt did me the honour to quote in the other House—words which I used, I think, two years ago—as to the danger of overstraining the resources of this country by extension of Empire. I used those words at that time because there was abroad in the public mind a state of feeling in respect of China, on which I looked with great apprehension. That has passed by, and I can mention it freely now. But undoubtedly, if we had been swept away by that feeling then and had entered upon military engagements in China, our present position would be embarrassing indeed. But I do not admit that the trouble which we are now in is due to any expansion of Empire. Never was there a less relevant observation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What I said was relevant in this way—that this

  47
  extension of Empire required a greater military force.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Our present difficulties arise entirely from this war with the two Republics, and certainly have not arisen out of any extension of empire. I think I have already had the honour of telling my noble friend that they arise mainly from certain miscalculations made in 1881 and 1884. But, be that as it may, I feel an equal difficulty in entering now upon the question of the resources which this country might have at its command in certain contingencies, which it is very easy for practised orators to conjure up. I do not myself think that those contingencies are at hand, or are likely to be at hand. But I do say that we cannot discuss the situation and the probable resources of this country without necessarily indulging in a good deal of conjectural matter. Nobody in this House, except two of my noble friends behind me, has faced the question of compulsory service. Every other nation depends for its defence on compulsory service, and has for some time done so. We stand alone in the world in refusing it. But if we refuse it we have no precedents to go by. We cannot appeal to their example; we cannot say, "See, other nations have tried it, and this has failed, and that has not." We start by pursuing a road entirely different from theirs, a road which, on a large scale, no nation has pursued before us. It is the will of the people, and it is not to be disputed; but it must necessarily lead us to conjecture as to what are the resources which we have at our disposal. It must be conjectural, because, as I say, we have no examples and no precedents to guide us. All that we know is that we are cut off from the resource which every other nation possesses. We can only use persuasion and inducement; and how can the effects of persuasion and inducement which have never before been tried to the same extent be otherwise than conjectural? What possibility is there of seeing into the mind of the Volunteer, or Militiaman, or enlisted recruit, and of ascertaining to what extent he will respond to the inducements which we offer? The noble lord said that, while every other Minister can tell you precisely by looking merely at statistics what force you can bring into the field,
  48
  with us there never can be anything but a question of judgment and hypothesis, and if the noble Lord complains that in our case it is only a matter of conjecture, I can only say that the absurdity does not lie in our intentions and calculations. It does not lie in anything with which we can properly be charged. It lies in the essence of human affairs. It lies in that form of military organisation which you have deliberately chosen, to which you deliberately adhere, and which in its nature is and must remain conjectural. I think, therefore, that attacking us because we do not spread forth an exact picture of the resources which we can have at our disposal, while all the time our critics carefully avoid discussing the alternative, the only alternative that is possible, the alternative that is present to everybody's; mind—I think that that is not a fashion of controversy which will aid ras in achieving a very satisfactory result. I must separate myself from some of the pessimistic language used by the noble Lord this evening, because, from looking at history, I see that England at several times has begun her wars under very poor conditions. I ventured some time ago to recommend the noble Lord to read the early days in the life of the Duke of Wellington—about the time of the Convention of Cintra.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Oh, I have read them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I hope the noble Lord will admit that if he had been living at that time he could have made even a more gloomy speech than he has made now. I do not know what he would have said of the Walcheren Expedition.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think we should both have agreed there.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We can both of us remember the beginning of the Crimean War, and I think the noble Lord, while not in a responsible position in the Cabinet, was in office at that time. I remember the kind of comments which the leader of the then Opposition, Mr. Disraeli, made in the months of November and December, 1854, about the condition to which England was reduced.We had precisely the difficulties which you hold before us now. We could not

  49
  then get men. We had to engage foreigners. I remember that Dover Castle was, I think, occupied by a number of Germans, and so we were unable, without appealing to foreign assistance, to provide the necessary troops for our Army in the field. I remember Mr. Disraeli's denunciations of "the mercenary cut-throats" which we had to employ and the remonstrances we received from foreign countries on account of that expression.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I defended them and was violently attacked.
  THE MARRQUESS OF SALISBURY: That war had been going on, I think, for some seven or eight months after the declaration of hostilities, yet we came out of it all right, and we came out of the Peninsular War in the same way, though I will not say exactly the same thing about the Walcheren expedition. On the whole, I do not think that our fathers allowed themselves to be discouraged by so short a period of misfortune. As to the present war, we hope that even now the change in the tide is coming; but, at all events, we can take a lesson from the example of those who have gone before us, not to allow ourselves to be cast down or discouraged by difficulties produced by a very remarkable conjunction of military development and political events. We are convinced that now, as generally and as almost always in the past, we shall bring our undertakings to a successful issue, and we do not think that any attempt to wrench the institutions of the country or to bring before the minds of the people dangers which do not really exist will lead us to ultimate success. What we propose is what we believe will be adequate for the emergency that is now before us. We do not realise or believe in the contingencies that you represent to us; but, of course, nothing is certain in this world. Contingencies may arise which we have no means of foreseeing; dangers may appear which now we do not fear. When the time comes we shall meet them, I hope, with a stout heart, and we shall steadily persevere in the course which we have undertaken. We shall give to the utmost extent the full expression of the free valour and enterprise of this country—that course which has always hitherto led us to the safety
  50
  of the Empire and to ultimate victory—and we do not think that any advantage is now to be obtained by taking a gloomy view, or by resorting to experiments that have never been tried before.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, the speech the noble Marquess has just made is one which was full of historical reminiscence, but which has not, I think, in the smallest degree alleviated the apprehensions and uneasiness which sit on the minds of most of your Lordships. We wanted to know what steps the Government were going to take in order to organise the valour and the patriotism of the inhabitants of this empire. Of that we have not been told a word. Indeed, I think to-night we are left even more in the dark than we were at the beginning of this discussion. On Monday night I certainly understood the Secretary of State for War to say that he hoped by the end of this month there would be 200,000 British troops in South Africa, and that there would be 50,000 more to follow.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I said nothing of the sort. I stated that 50,000 men were ordered, or on their way, to South Africa. I did not say they were extra to the 200,000.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That was the impression given to me, and I think if the noble Marquess will read the report of his speech as given in The Times he will see that it is a legitimate conclusion to draw from the report. On the other hand, we now hear that these 50,000 men who have been put forward as the reserve force which is to go into South Africa for the prosecution of the war are to be produced by a certain number of men who are now on the sea, and that, besides that, the number of the Militia to remain in this country is also-to be reduced to make up the 50,000. Even if the operations of Lord Roberts are successful on the Modder River, and a way is found to get round the "entanglement" of Ladysmith, we shall still have before us large operations. We shall require to advance through the Free State. We shall have to provide for an ever-lengthening line of communication, and we should be prepared to send out to South Africa a continuous flow of troops—10,000 a month

  51
  —if we are to carry out these operations in a satisfactory manner. The noble Marquess has stated that the criticisms from this side of the House have been based upon the fact that the figures of the Government are conjectural and uncertain. I think the noble Marquess might have done away with much of the conjecture by offering larger inducements to men to join both the regular Army and the Militia. More and more has the cost of labour increased throughout the country, and more and more is it necessary, if you are going to get men from the labouring classes to voluntarily join the ranks, to secure to them advantages similar to those which they would have if they remained in civil life. Throughout this discussion not one word has been said as to increasing the pay of soldiers of the Regular Army, yet such a proposal would do much to increase the number of men who would be prepared to join the Army. More than once to-night reference has been made to the manner in which the Volunteers are to be treated. I am sure it is impossible to expect Volunteers to go out into camp for a month in the year, and I do not believe it is necessary to give Volunteers so much training in large numbers. I believe their training can be sufficiently attended to in small bodies, and that plenty of company drill, given, perhaps, early in the morning or late in the evening during the summer months, would do much to fit the Volunteers for active service if they were called upon, especially if some additional facilities and inducements were given them to become first-rate shots. The Volunteers of this country, after all, are not, as a body, first-rate shots. I believe 60 per cent, of them never get out of the third class. Both soldiers and Volunteers alike are starved in amunition for the purpose of practice. The noble Earl who opened this discussion said he differed from me in my remarks about ranges. The noble Earl misapprehended me. I do not for a moment say that a man can become the very best of shots by simply practising at short ranges. What I said was that all the essentials of rifle shooting could be attained by practice at short ranges, and that when men were efficient at short ranges they could be taken to long ranges. A very singular proof of the truth of what I say is to be found in the shooting competition which
  52
  took place last year in Belgium. There the British marksmen—men picked from the ranks, and practically the best shots in Great Britain—came out very low indeed; they occupied the fifth place, I believe, amongst the various nationalities who competed. Curiously enough, the Belgian and the Swiss marksmen were men who had been trained at short ranges, and who had only fired at long ranges in practising for that particular competition. I think that proves that my argument is a sound and practical one. The noble Earl also found fault with me for saying that the most effective shooting during the present war had been at comparatively short range. I adhere to that opinion. At Colenso, where, I suppose, the marksmanship of the Boers came in more effectively than anywhere else, 800 yards was the extreme distance of the Boer riflemen from our own men. It is impossible to make good practice at 1,000, 1,200, and 1,500 yards; if it is done it is more by a fluke than good management. I regret that the Government have not been able on this occasion to explain and extend their statement with regard to their proposals to carry on the war with success. I hope the plans they have made will prove successful and sufficient; but if they do not, on the Government will be the responsibility.
  VISCOUNT FALKLAND: My Lords, before the debate on the Militia comes on on Tuesday next I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that owing to the necessary practice of Militia regiments taking place in different months it is found that men arc serving in two, and some times in three different Militia regiments. It is needless to point out how material this fact is in considering the number of men we can call out for service. I should like to know what steps have been taken to guard against one man taking the part of three in the future.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have heard the statement made just now by the noble Lord on several occasions, and it is conceivable that there may be cases of fraudulent enlistment such, as lie describes. They would be very difficult to detect; but if we are able to have a large number of Militia battalions up simultaneously for training, we shall then, I think, find out in the most prac-

  53
  tical manner whether one man is enrolled in more than one battalion.
  The House adjourned at Twenty-live minutes before Eight of the clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten of the clock.