Sitting of 16 February 1900

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
The Treasurer of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your

215
thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely:—

  Bedford Gas Bill.

  East London Water Bill.

  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.

  Grantham Gas Bill.

  Great Eastern Railway Bill.

  Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill.

  Lambeth Water Bill.

  London and South-Western Railway Bill.

  North Metropolitan Railway and Canal Company Bill.

  North Warwickshire Water Bill.

  Ossett Gas Bill.

  Redhill Gas Bill.

  St. Albans Water Bill.

  South Metropolitan Gas Bill.

  Southport Water Bill.

  Wetherby District Water Bill.

  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing-Order No. 63 has been complied with, namely:—

  Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Bill.

  Colonial Bank Bill.

  County of London and Brush Provincial Electric Lighting Bill.

  Rugeley Gas Bill.

  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table; Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for the following the Standing Orders have not been complied with namely:—
  St. David's Railway (Abandonment) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To enable the London County Council to work their Tramways by electrical power; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT).
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
PETITIONS.
  INEBRIATES ACTS.
  Petition from Stockport, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Buckhaven, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Hertford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Colne; Nutgrove; Whalley Range; and Withington; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Hertford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Newburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COMMITTALS (IRELAND)).
  Copy presented,—of Returns from Clerks of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in the year 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES).
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 10th February, 1900, awarding to Mr. Mark Perrin, Registrar of Judgments in Ireland, whose office has been consolidated with the Record and Writ Office by order of the Lord Chancellor of ire-land, a compensation allowance under Section 72 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATE RETREATS (RULES FOR MANAGEMENT).
  Copy presented,—of Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management and discipline of the St. Joseph's Certified Inebriate Reformatory at Ashford, in the County of Middlesex [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER COMMUNICATION.
  Copy presented,—of Circular from the Board of Trade to the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom and correspondence relating thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented,—of Statutes made for the University of London by the Commissioners appointed under the University of London Act, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 60.]

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS
  Copy ordered, "of Account showing the gross amount received and the gross amount expended in respect of the Telegraph Service from the date of the transfer of the Telegraphs to the State to the 31st day of March, 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 54, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 61.]

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Address for "Return of all sentences, of Corporal Punishment inflicted under 26 and 27 Vic, c. 44, upon persons convicted of offences against Section 43 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and section 21 of the Offences against the Person Act,, 1861, in England and Wales from the 31st day of March, 1898, to the 31st day of December, 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 166, of session. 1898)."—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
  TRADE UNION FUNDS (RANKING).
  Order [15th February] for return relative thereto read, and discharged.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following six Members to be the Chairmen's Panel and to serve as-Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing Order No. 47:—Mr. John Ellis,. Sir James Fergusson, Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Ordered, That the report do lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—INCIDENCE; OF THE COST OF COLONIAL VOLUNTEERS.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the pay and other expenses of the forces of the Colonies of Natal and Cape Colony employed in the war in South Africa are to be borne by these Colonies, or whether any undertaking has been given for their repayment in whole or part out of the Imperial Exchequer.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The question of the ultimate incidence of the cost of the Colonial Volunteers must remain for subsequent consideration when the general question of the settlement of expenditure in connection with the war is under review.

  NEWS FROM THE SEAT OF WAR.
  SIR W. HART DYKE (): Has the First Lord of the Treasury any further information relating to the war beyond that already published?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I left the War Office half an hour ago and no further information had up to that time arrived.

  SUSPECTED TREASON—MR. BAREND DU PLESSIS.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now inform the House of the result of his inquiries as to whether Mr. Barend du Plessis, a well-to-do farmer of Hanover District, Cape Town, was arrested on the 10th of December last on a charge of high treason, based on the unsupported statement of a discharged native servant, and was kept in prison for ten days and then set free, the Solicitor General declining to prosecute; and whether any compensation will be made to this gentleman.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have not heard from Sir Alfred Milner the result of his enquiries, and I am reminding him.

  DEATHS OF TROOPS FROM DISEASE.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the number of deaths from disease among the forces serving in South Africa, and, if possible, the number of those who have succumbed to enteric fever.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The figures are approximately:—Deaths from enteric, 240; deaths from other diseases, 268; making a total of 508.

  FIELD GLASSES.
  MR. YOXALL (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to supply field glasses to non-commissioned officers and patrol leaders engaged on active service in South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A large supply of field glasses has been sent out to South
  220
  Africa for the Commander-in-Chief distribute as he thinks fit.

  MAXIM-NORDENFELDT QUICK-FIRING ONE-POUNDER GUNS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the British forces in South Africa are supplied, or are to lie supplied, with the Maxim-Nordenfeldt quick-firing one-pounder gun.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member, no doubt, refers to the Vickers-Maxim automatic one-pounder guns which are being sent out to South Africa.

  VOLUNTEERS' EQUIPMENT.
  MR. WASON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a detachment of the London Scottish Rifle Volunteers, numbering fifty-five men, accepted for active service in South Africa with the Gordon Highlanders, were ordered to provide themselves with the Gordon tartan kilts; whether the Government Department at Pimlico were unable to supply the necessary kilts, and the detachment had to got them elsewhere; what extra expense was thereby caused to the detachment, and by whom will it be borne. And, if the detachment are now equipped, with the exception of the khaki aprons, which were not ready when the rest of the equipment obtained by the detachment was complete.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Volunteer corps I going out to South Africa provide their own clothing. The London Scottish expressed a wish to be affiliated to a Highland regiment instead of to the Rifle Brigade, of which they are the seventh battalion. This wish was gratified; they I consequently applied to the clothing department for the material for tartan kilts, which was issued to them. As regiments prefer to make up their kilts regimentally, no made up kilts are issued by the I department. An outfit allowance is granted for the expense of the clothing of the Volunteer corps going out.
  MR. WASON: What was the difference in price between the two outfits?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Had the London Scottish gone out as part of the Rifle

  221
  Brigade they would have worn ordinary khaki, but of their own free will they made representations, which we were glad to receive, in favour of having tartan kilts, and no doubt they contemplated the consequences.

  REFRESHMENTS FOR TROOPS BEFORE EMBARKATION AT QUEENSTOWN.
  MR. FLYNN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state what arrangements were made by the War Office authorities in the direction of providing necessary refreshments for the troops on arrival at Queenstown before embarkation on the transport vessels. Whether many battalions in the months of November and December, after long railway journeys, were detrained at Queenstown, and kept at the railway terminus for many hours without food or drink of any kind, and who is responsible for this treatment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Dinner meals are provided for troops on board vessels immediately after embarkation. In a few cases when the ship has arrived very late half rations have been issued to the men while waiting. Troops have never been kept any long time at Queenstown without refreshment.
  MR. FLYNN: My question was whether the men were kept ashore without food. Is it not the case that they have been sometimes so kept for 15, 16, and oven 24 hours?
  MR. WYNDHAM: My answer is in direct contradiction of tint statement.

  SOLDIERS' TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the approximate amount per diem or per meal allowed to non-commissioned officers and privates when travelling by rail or by sea to join their respective regiments or depôts; and what is the amount per head allowed when travelling from stations in South Wales to Cork viâ Alilford steamer.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Where the journey by railway exceeds 150 miles sums varying from sixpence to 1s. 8d., according to distance, are allowed for subsistence. For
  222
  the voyage form South Wales to Cork the allowance is 1s 4d.

  POSTAL RATES ON LETTERS FROM TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. STEADMAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether arrangements can lie made to allow our troops in South Africa to send letters to their relatives and friends at home free of charge. And whether the same privilege can be extended to letters sent from home to soldiers and sailors in South Africa.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): It has been arranged that soldiers actually serving at the front, and consequently not always within reach of an Army Post Office, shall, within reasonable limits, be allowed to send home letters without prepayment, the cost being defrayed out of Army Funds. The same privilege cannot be extended to letters sent from this country to the front; but every assistance will be given as regards postage deficient on letters addressed to the soldiers themselves.

  THE HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, if the three regiments of Household Cavalry are to be, brought up to full strength with a view to employment on active service, opportunity will lie taken to abolish the cuirass, which, is useless in the time of war, and prevents the proper wearing of medals in times of peace.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not proposed to make any change in the home uniform of Her Majesty's personal troops.

  RECRUITING STANDARDS.
  MAJOR RASCH (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has reduced the physical standard of recruits; and what, is the minimum for infantry of the Line and artillery drivers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The standard of height has been reduced in the following cases:—Drivers in Horse and Field

  223
  Artillery, from 5 ft. 4 in. to 5 ft. 2 in,; Infantry of the Line, from 5 ft. 3 in. to 5 ft. 3 in.; Army Service Corps, from 5 ft. 3 in. to 5 ft. 2½ in. No change whatever has been made in the chest measurements for any of the above arms, or in the medical examination, which has not been relaxed in any way.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of increasing the pay instead of reducing the height?
  [No answer was given.]

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can say how many rifle ranges have been acquired by Volunteer corps and county and borough councils under the Ranges Act, 1891.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If my hon. friend will move for a return the information will be given. It requires to be collected from the several districts.

  GERMANY AND HOLLAND.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have observed the statement in the North German Gazette to the effect that the chief object of German anticipations is to bring home certain lessons to Holland, that Holland is alarmed at the spectacle of the fate which has overtaken the Spanish colonies at the hands of America and by the action of England in South Africa, that dangers to Holland would be obviated and advantages secured if Holland would take steps to obtain an offensive and defensive alliance and a customs union with Germany by entering into the same relations with the German Empire as were maintained with Prussia by the South German States between 1866 and 1870, and that a union of this nature would be of equal advantage for the position of Germany as a great Power for her influence on the seas and for her colonial sphere of commercial activity; whether Her Majesty's Government have now any information as to communications or negotiations having passed between the Government of the Netherlands and the German Government
  224
  in connection with the hostilities proceeding in South Africa, having reference to the relations between these two Powers; and whether they have any reason to anticipate that the project of an alliance between Holland and Germany, or of the inclusion of Holland in the German Empire, is under consideration by the Government of the Netherlands.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the two remaining questions in the negative.

  SAMOA—GERMAN GOVERNMENT TRADING LICENCES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the recent agreement with regard to Samoa, the German Government has it in its power to forbid trade except under licence, and not only to sell licences for revenue but to refuse them without cause; for example, to refuse them as a rule to British subjects.
  MR. BRODRICK: The stipulations of the Anglo-German Declaration of 1886, applied to Samoa by the Agreement of the 14th of November last, include provisions that in the possessions and protectorates of the two Powers in the Western Pacific, the subjects of either State shall be free to engage in all descriptions of trade and agricultural and industrial undertakings subject to the same conditions and laws, and enjoying the same protection and privileges as the subjects of the sovereign or protecting State. Provision was also made securing equal as well as most-favoured-nation treatment to the ships and merchandise of both States. It is not in the power of the German Government to differentiate as against British subjects, whether by refusal of licences or otherwise, without a violation of the agreement.

  THE NEW HEBRIDES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any negotiations are going on the result of which might be calculated to modify the international position of the New Hebrides; and whether the Government

  225
  will give New Zealand, which long claimed the group, or the Australian colonies the opportunity of considering any such proposed arrangement before it becomes irrevocable, as has been suggested by a unanimous resolution of the Prime Ministers of the Australian Colonies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There arc no negotiations in progress in regard to the New Hebrides. The colonies interested will certainly be given an opportunity of considering any arrangement proposed in connection with the group.

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION ABROAD.
  MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the papers promised on the subject of University education in foreign countries will he laid upon the Table.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is proposed to present the papers shortly.

  BURMO-CHINESE BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the murder at the village of Meughem of Major Kiddle, Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Litton, attached to the Bui-mo-Chinese Boundary Commission; and whether he will state what military steps are being taken, in view of this serious incident, with regard to the future labours of the Commission.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have received the following information of the events referred to. It appears that the officers in question were assaulted whilst visiting a bazaar on the 9th of February last at the village of Menghem. Two were murdered and one wounded. Menghem is just outside British territory as at present delimitated. The Government of India are considering whether the Commission should not withdraw to British territory for the present, and will take, in concert with the Chinese Commissioner, such measures as may seem to them to be necessary.

  RAILWAY (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  MR. SCHWANN (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether copies of the Railway (Prevention of Accidents) Bill, read a first time on the 12th instant, can be distributed to members without loss of time, as great public interest is felt in the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Bill will, I hope, be introduced in the early part of next week.

  PRISON OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the petitions forwarded to him by the officers of Her Majesty's prisons, praying that their retiring allowances may be augmented to two-thirds of their pay and allowances on completing thirty years of service; and whether, having regard to the additional responsibilities imposed on such officers by the Prisons Act of 1898, the request of the petitioners might be complied with.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have received these petitions from the Prison Commissioners this morning. I shall now consider whether I ought again to make any recommendations to the Treasury on this subject.

  FACILITIES FOR RIFLE PRACTICE BY CIVILIANS.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCH (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, taking into consideration the strong feeling throughout the country that every man should be encouraged to make himself efficient in the use of firearms, there is any valid objection to the Inland Revenue Board granting a licence for one day at a given place whereby anyone may participate in a rifle match, a glass ball match, or any match for acquiring skill in the use of firearms.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): There is at present no provision in the law which would empower

  227
  the Board of Inland Revenue to grant gun licences for a less period than one year. Having regard to the amount of the duty, 10s., it seems doubtful whether; any person could "make himself efficient in the use of firearms" more cheaply by means of occasional licences than by taking out a licence for a year, unless occasional licences were to be granted at a nominal rate. I am considering the question of an exemption from gun licence duty in the case of rifle clubs recognised by the War Office, but I think any such exemption should be confined to regular target practice under proper supervision.

  AGE OF EMPLOYMENT IN UNDERGROUND WORK.
  MR. GRAY (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether assent; was given by Her Majesty's Government in 1890 to the proposal made at the International Labour Congress, held at Berlin, that the age at which children might be permitted to work underground should be raised from twelve to fourteen; and whether any steps have been taken to give effect to that proposal, and, if not, whether the Government contemplate legislation upon the subject during the current session.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. The question in the second paragraph should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Home Secretary.

  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state why the Civil Service Commissioners have recently required certain assistant clerks to undergo a further medical examination as a condition precedent to promotion to the second division under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898; and whether certain assistant clerks were promoted to the second division without such medical examination, and whether promotions from the second to the higher divisions will depend on such further medical test.
  MR. HANBURY: Some assistant clerks in the earlier part of the year 1899
  228
  were promoted to the second division without further medical examination, but the Civil Service Commissioners have since directed that for the future all shall be so examined. The reason for the change is that, while abstractors arc; assigned for service in one particular department only, the second division is a body liable to serve in any department of the State, and in some instances in foreign climates. It is usual for a more stringent inquiry into health to be held where such conditions prevail. The promotion of a second division clerk to the first division would not involve a fresh medical examination, unless the report of the authorities of the Department in which he had been serving indicated anything unsatisfactory in the state of his health.

  EXAMINERS OF ART IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it has been finally decided that no pension of compassionate allowance shall be made to certain examiners of art in elementary schools whose posts have been abolished: whether these gentlemen, whose service extends from forty years downwards, were technically "occasional" officials, arid therefore subject to no pension; whether, owing to pressure of work, their service was latterly required by the Science and Art Department almost continuously, with the result that, being unable to take up other work at the same time, they have consequently lost their connection and prospects of employment elsewhere; and whether there are analogous precedents in which occasional officials of the Science and Art Department have received recognition from the Treasury on their retirement.
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. As none of these Examiners have served in the permanent Civil Service, the Treasury, which must act strictly according to the Superannuation Acts, has no power to grant them compensation allowances, or, in other words, pensions on abolition of office. Under the Superannuation Act of 1887 the Treasury has power to award gratuities on abolition of office to persons who have given seven years' service and have been required to devote their whole time to their duties.

  229
  None of these examiners had fulfilled the latter condition. It is the fact that the Treasury have in the past awarded compensation allowances in cases analogous to these, but they have done so under a misapprehension as to their legal powers, and, now that the legal position is clear, the practice has necessarily been discontinued.

  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS' SICK LEAVE.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether servants of the Post Office are compelled to notify to the Department the outbreak of infectious diseases in their homes; and whether such officers are generally prevented from performing their official duties, and compelled to remain away from office until medical sanction is given; whether a regulation has recently been issued stating that this enforced absence will be treated as sick leave; and whether he can state if it is intended to count this time when an officer's superannuation owing to illness is being considered.
  MR. HANBURY: Post Office servants are required to report to their superior officer any case of scarlet fever, small pox, typhus, cholera, diphtheria, measles, or typhoid fever occurring in their homes. Should the case be one of the first four of these diseases the man is not allowed to attend for duty, but this practice is not maintained as regards diphtheria, measles, or typhoid fever except under special circumstances. Full pay is allowed in all cases of compulsory detention from duty from the above causes; but in calculating the amount of sick leave which an officer may receive on full pay during the year the period of any such compulsory absence is included.

  IRISH RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS' SITTINGS.
  MR. FIELD (): I beg to ask the President of. the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of times the Railway Commissioners have acted in Ireland since their appointment in 1881, in what places, the cost of each witting, and the result thereof.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Railway Commissioners were appointed under the Railway
  230
  and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and an account of their proceedings in Ireland will be found in their annual reports presented to Parliament. Apart from the cost of the Commission itself, which it is impossible to apportion, I am informed that the special expenses of the Commissioners in Ireland are confined to the travelling expenses of the two appointed Commissioners and the registrar.

  MOUNTJOY STATION, G.N.R., IRELAND.
  MR. MURNAGHAN (): beg to ask the President of the Board that much of Trade whether ho is aware dissatisfaction exists in the neighbourhood at the prolonged closing of the Mountjoy Station on the Great Northern Railway of Ireland; and that the directors have been petitioned on the subject, and public meetings held to protest against the closure as an inconvenience to the people and a hindrance to the development of the district: and will he state if the directors intend to accede to the wishes of the inhabitants and re-open Mountjoy Station.
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand after communication with the company that they do not propose to re-open the station. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member a letter I have received from the General Manager on the subject.

  OMAUH POST OFFICE.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the plans of the new post office at Omagh have been prepared: if the request of the Town Commissioners of Omagh for a copy of the plans has been granted; and, will he state if tenders have been invited for the erection of the post office, and when building operations are to begin.
  MR. HANBURY: It has been necessary to recast those plans at Omagh, and the revised plans have not yet been submitted for approval. I cannot say, therefore, when tenders for the work will be invited, but the work will probably be commenced during the ensuing financial year. The Irish Board of Works will no doubt be ready to show the revised

  231
  plans to the Town Commissioners, if they are asked to do so.

  ARRAN STONE FORTS.
  SERJEANT HEMPHILL (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how the ruins of the stone forts on the north, middle, and south islands of Arran, in the county of Galway, not being churches or ecclesiastical buildings or structures within the meaning of the Trish Church Act, 1869, Section 25, became vested in the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, as they appear to be, according to the schedule to their report issued in 1895. Whether there is any and, if so, what order vesting the ruins of the monasteries of Mungret, in the county of Limerick, and those of Mellifont, in the county of Louth, in the secretary of the said Commissioners of Public Works; and, if not, by what authority are these ruins maintained by the said Commissioners. Whether any and, if so, which of the ancient monuments mentioned in the Schedule (Ireland) to the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, have been vested in the said Commissioners, as provided by section 2 of the said last mentioned Act. Whether he will consider the propriety of having an inquiry made as to the amount of public money spent on ruins in Ireland not vested in the said Commissioners under cither the Ancient Monuments Act, 1882, or the Irish Church Act, 1869. And would he grant a return showing what ancient monuments were vested in the secretary of the said Commissioners of Public Works on 31st December last and the respective dates of the vesting orders in each case.
  MR. HANBURY: These stone forts were included in the Order of the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners dated 30th October, 1880, vesting certain structures in the Board of Works. Whether the Commissioners acted within their powers in so including them is a legal point on which I can offer no opinion. Mungret Monastery was vested in the Board by an Order of 12th December, 1877, and Mellifont by one of 13th October, 1880. I will give the right hon. Member a list of the monuments referred to in paragraph 3. The Board of Works are already giving special attention to the payments made about
  232
  1890 referred to in the fourth paragraph. I will direct that the information referred to in the fifth paragraph shall be given as a schedule to the next report of the Board of Works. I think this will be more convenient than the issue of a separate return.

  HOLYHEAD AND LARNE AND STRANRAER MAIL ROUTES.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what steps have been taken to remedy the irregularities in the Irish mail service both by Holyhead and Lame and Stranraer routes; and whether he would have any objection to a return being furnished showing the number of occasions on which the services have failed to catch the respective local connections in Ireland, specifying the cause of such delay in each case.
  MR. HANBURY: The irregularity in the service viâ Holyhead has been due mainly to the trains to Holyhead on many occasions having been run in two parts. The number of passengers by the mail train seems to have largely increased since the railway company have provided third class accommodation, and the trains have run at more convenient hours. The railway company have been urged to take the best measures possible for preventing delay, and suggestions have been made to them which may effect a slight improvement. One cause of irregularity in this service has recently been removed, as the outward American mails on Wednesdays are now sent by special packet from Holyhead in advance of the ordinary mail packet. The service viâ Stranraer has been performed somewhat more regularly during the last three months, but there have been cases of delay, due mainly to pressure of traffic and severity of weather. Proposals have recently been made to the companies providing for this service with the view of effecting an improvement. Returns are being taken showing the occasions on which the mails by both routes have reached Ireland too late for the usual connections, and a copy of these returns shall, when ready, be forwarded to the hon. Member.

  LONGFORD POST OFFICE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as repre-

  233
  senting the Postmaster General, on what grounds the Post Office authorities refused to erect a lamp outside the new post office in Longford, which, whilst affording light to that part of the street, would be of much use to the public frequenting the post office on dark nights; and, whether, as this new building is a considerable ornament to the town, they will, for the sake of a few pounds extra, light it up in a better manner.
  MR. HANBURY: This is a very small matter on which to put a question. There is a public lamp immediately outside; the office already.

  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS IN DERRY.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been drawn to the fact that almost all the public appointments in the city of Derry are in the hands of the Protestant minority; and whether, in view of the vacancies caused by the recent death of Sir William Miller, due consideration will be given to the claims of Roman Catholic and Nationalist medical men before filling these appointments.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (): Is it not the fact that one of the city inspectorships is held by an Irish Roman Catholic Nationalist doctor?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON,): The meaning of the expression "public appointments" in the first paragraph is not very clear. If the hon. Member refers to the officers of local bodies, I would remind him that these officers are appointed independently of the Government. And as regards the officers whose appointments are subject to the control of the Government, I have no information as to the politics or religions of such officers. With respect to the second paragraph, the legitimate claims of all candidates will lie carefully considered.

  BELFAST LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. DALY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can
  234
  state at how many sittings of the Chief Land Commission in Belfast during the year 1898 was Mr. Commissioner Morough O'Brien present.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I must refer the hon. Member to the reply to a somewhat similar question addressed to the Chief Secretary on the 9th May last year by the hon. Member for South Louth.* For the reasons stated by my right hon. friend on that occasion I must decline to answer this question.

  COUNTY DOWN LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Chief Land Commissioners recently in County Down, out of sixteen appeal cases heard, raised thirteen and confirmed three cases; whether he can state if any of the Chief Commissioners visited the farms in question; and whether the fair rents fixed by the court valuer were in every case adhered to; and if not, can he state in how many instances the rent was fixed over the return of the court valuer.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Twenty-four appeals from the County Down were heard by the Commissioners at Belfast in December last. Of these, the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners were affirmed in four cases; in two cases the rents were reduced and in thirteen increased; five cases are still pending. It is not the practice of the Chief Commissioners to view the holdings. In fourteen cases the judicial rents as fixed on appeal were above the estimates of the court valuers; in three cases they were below, and in two cases the same as the valuers' estimates.

  KERRY COUNTY RATES.
  MR. FLAVIN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the rate struck for the year 1899–1900 by the Kerry County Council, giving separately the rate on agricultural land, as also on other hereditaments, in each of the following rural districts, viz.: Listowel, Kenmare, Dingle, Killarney, Cahirciveen, and Tralee.
  [See The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. Ixxi., page 144.]
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The rates struck in the rural districts named, taking them in the order mentioned in the question, for the year 1899–1900 are, on agricultural land, 5s. 1d., 5s. 11d., 5s. 9d., 4s. 7d., 5s. 9d., and 4s. 2d.; and on other hereditaments 7s. 8d, 8s. 8d., 8s. 7d., 6s. 8d., 8s. 4d., and 6s. 6d. respectively.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if there are any districts in the county of Kerry on which there is levied a rate of over 2s. in the £ for the year 1899–1900 for railway guarantees; and whether he is aware that the ratepayers of Kerry contribute annually about £15,000 as rates levied on guaranteed railways; and, if so, whether the Government can see their way either by a free grant of money, or by wiping out a portion of the railway indebtedness, to relieve the heavy burden of taxation on the ratepayers.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I have not yet completed my inquiries in reference to this question, and will ask the hon. Member to postpone it until Monday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the importance of the matters involved in the motion of the honourable Member for Merthyr, to be debated on Tuesday next, and the wide interest taken in it, he will move on Tuesday that the debate thereon, if under discussion at twelve o'clock, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I cannot imagine that anybody in the House, except, perhaps, the hon. Member himself, would desire that the debate on Tuesday should be prolonged after twelve o'clock at night. I may say that, unless we finish the Report stage of the three War Office Votes, one of which was finished last night, by twelve o'clock on Monday, I shall have to take a morning sitting on Tuesday. I cannot imagine, however, that there will I be any difficulty in getting the Report stage by then.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (): But the right hon. Gentleman has given us an assurance that he will only take a morning sitting in the case of grave emergency.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so; and I consider the question of keeping the law a grave emergency. When I asked the House to give me certain privileges I explained that the Treasury had to meet certain demands from the War Office, and I am now informed that unless the Report stage of these Votes is obtained by Tuesday, we cannot comply with the law.
  MR. BUCHANAN (): What is the law '? What are the statutory obligations which require that Report of these three Votes should be taken by Tuesday night? Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell us that.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have nothing to add to the statement already made by the Leader of the House. I cannot quote any particular statute, clause, or section; I can only confirm what my right hon. friend has stated.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON (): What will happen if the Vote is not passed?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The law will be broken.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is determined by the use of the closure to insist upon passing this Vote of thirteen millions sterling to-night?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The application of the closure does not rest with the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I know its application depends on the Chairman, but I would ask the right Hon. Gentleman does he intend as far as lies in his power to force through the House, after one night's debate, the Vote for thirteen millions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman has put the question under a misapprehension. My view

  237
  that the time afforded is quite sufficient is strengthened by the fact that in the debate on the Address a large number of Members, including notably the hon. Gentleman himself, made speeches whose subject matter was very closely allied to the question we are now discussing. The Committee took the Vote for men last night, and are to take the Vote for money to-night. The practice is that the general discussion shall take place either on one or the other of these Votes, and as far as it lay with me I have given ample latitude to the general discussion which has already taken place on the Vote for men. It cannot be said, therefore, that the Money Vote is to be dealt with in one night, for it has already been dealt with in a debate extending over three or four nights.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not a single speech was delivered dealing with the money question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The whole policy was discussed.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will the Report stage be taken after twelve o'clock on Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report stage can be taken after twelve o'clock.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  John Brownlee Lonsdale, Esq., for the County of Armagh (Mid Division).
NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION.
  Bill to extend the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act to officers and servants of other local authorities, ordered to be brought in by Major Rasch, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Galloway, and Mr. Sinclair.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  "To extend the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superammuation Act to officers and servants of other local autho-
  238
  rities," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to extend the powers and provisions of the Licensing Acts to Magistrates of Police of Burghs in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colville, Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Mr. Caldwell, and Mr. Souttar.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To extend the powers and provisions of the Licensing Acts to Magistrates of Police of Burghs in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1895) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Wedderburn, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Buchanan, and Captain Sinclair.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1895) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second Armagh time upon Wednesday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION.
  Bill to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Factories and Workshops, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caldwell, Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Souttar, Mr. Colville, and Mr. John Wilson (Govan).
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  "To amend and consolidate the law relating to Factories and Workshops," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
  BOILERS REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION (No. 2).
  Bill to provide for the Inspection and Registration of Boilers, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Sir Edward Gourley, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Provand, Colonel Denny, and Mr. Leigh Clare.
  BOILERS REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION (No. 2) BILL.
  "To provide for the Inspection and Registration of Boilers," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 7th March, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Hobhouse, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Humphreys-Owen.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Electric Lighting Act, 1882," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE.
  Bill to make provision with respect to the Tenure of the Houses of Workmen in certain Employments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colville, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Souttar, and Mr. John Wilson (Govan).
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to the Tenure of the Houses of Workmen in certain Employments," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

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

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceed-
240
ing £13,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for additional expenditure, in consequence of the war in South Africa, in respect of the following Army services, namely:—

£

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

2,400,000

Vote 2. Medical establishments: pay, etc

70,000

Vote 3. Militia: pay, etc.

250,000

Vote 4. Yeomanry cavalry: pay and allowances

5,000

Vote 5. Volunteer corps: pay and allowances

15,000

Vote 6. Transport and remounts

5,000,000

Vote 7. Provisions, forage, and other supplies

3,000,000

Vote 8. Clothing establishments and services

500,000

Vote 9. Warlike and other stores

1,600,000

Vote 10. Works, etc.: cost (including staff for engineer services)

1,30,000

Vote 13. War Office salaries and miscellaneous charges

10,000

Total

£13,000,000."

—(Mr. Wyndham.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): I am obliged to demur somewhat to the absolute doctrine laid down by the First Lord of the Treasury as to the scope within which the discussion of this Vote should be confined. It may be quite true that in the ordinary discussion of the annual Army Estimates it is convenient to the House to take the larger discussion of policy on Vote A, and then on Vote I, which contains an infinitude of details, to discuss the detailed proposals. But on this occasion I cannot accept, subject, of course, to your ruling, Mr. Lowther, the doctrine that we are, in considering a Vote for such an enormous sum of money, prohibited from considering the general policy on which the demand is made. After the discussion which has proceeded for some days we are able to look upon this matter in the light of the criticisms which have been passed on the proposals of the Government, and we are better able to understand the distinction between the proposals which are permanent and those which are temporary. With all his skill, my hon. friend in his speech the other night was not able to altogether disentangle these two classes of proposals. So far as the temporary provisions are

241
concerned, our position—and the position, I believe, of the vast majority of those who are listening to me—is perfectly clear. Anything that is necessary for the energetic and successful prosecution of the war we will give without stint and without measure; and anything that is necessary for completing the military defence of these islands we are also prepared to assent to without demur, and without being too minute or fastidious in our criticisms of what may be proposed. I think the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, and the Secretary of State in another place, dwelt a little too much on the conjectural and experimental nature of these proposals, because they gave colour to the conception that they were somewhat of a haphazard character, put forward without such full consideration as should have been given to them. I am sure that was not their intention. The case is rather that the Government wish to use the disposition naturally engendered by the war, and affecting the warmest sentiments of the people, to make—I will not say demand—but to make arrangements with regard to the bettor training of the Militia and the Volunteers which would not, perhaps, lie possible in ordinary times, and which may be somewhat in the nature of a test of what those two forces may be prepared to undergo in quieter times. When the Under Secretary for War laid his proposals before the Committee I ventured to express a fear that the burden which he was seeking to lay upon those forces was more than they could bear, because the Volunteers are men occupied in business of various kinds, and not having the disposal of their time. The Militiamen are also for the most part men who take their two or three weeks training as an annual holiday, and take it joyfully, doing their service with satisfaction to themselves and with benefit to the country. But if those two or three weeks are extended the men might be altogether unable to serve. To that extent, therefore, the alarm created by the proposal in the first instance was perfectly justifiable; but explained as it is—and it was explained at the time, though it escaped observation—that it was only for this year, by way of a test and also in order to take advantage of the natural patriotic feeling in military matters that possesses the country at this moment, I think there is not much objection to be taken to it,
242
especially as all those arrangements are of a purely permissive and voluntary character on the part of those who are affected by them. One other point of detail, and the only one I will refer to, was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. It was, I think, one of the most important—namely, that in all our arrangements with regard to the constitution and recruiting of the Army we should preserve elasticity—that with this voluntary Army of ours there should always be a choice of the conditions of service offered to those who wish to join the Army. Some men desire to make a long career of Army service. If they are suitable men let them do it. Others may desire to go into the Army for a short time. If they are suitable men, let them go in. I would go further and say that there should be opportunities at certain periods of their training whereby they may pass from one of these categories to another, so that our voluntary Army should be a willing service throughout. The Government propose to invite a large number of time-expired men of suitable age to revert to the colours in order to fill up the immediate deficiencies in the force. That, as I say, is a most natural and also most useful part of the proposal. At the same time I suppose these men will go on for pension. In either case you are, as it were, shifting the balance of the Army more in the direction of long service. I think care should be taken, and I have no doubt it is the intention of the Government, that there should be a free opportunity for men to enlist for the short period of three years, because if you do not encourage that kind of enlistment at this moment your Reserve will lie in a parlous condition in the course of a few years. It has been almost emptied at the present moment, and therefore it ought to be particularly our aim to encourage short service now for the future development of that force which has proved itself so useful in this emergency and has earned the admiration of the whole country. I wish to direct attention now to some of the larger aspects of this question. I have been amongst the first to declare that we should concentrate all our attention upon the immediate situation, and leave the consideration of the future of the Army to some better and fuller time, and to some calmer opportunities of discussion: but views and doctrines have

243
been put forward which call for some immediate notice. How is the Army of the future to be constituted, what addition is to be made to its strength, and, as underlying these two questions, what estimate are we justified in taking of our future military requirements? These are problems which rise before us. There is no need to contemplate these questions in any spirit of panic. There is no occasion for panic at the present moment. There is a piece of advice with which we are familiar—although, T think, we quote it more often than we act upon it—"Let us clear our minds of cant." I think that we should clear our minds of panic. We should steel our hearts against panic, for there is no occasion for it at the present time. I see that many writers and speakers express alarm and astonishment that we should be put in difficulties by two little fourth-rate States. That is not a true appreciation of the situation. Putting aside altogether the question whether the Government ought to have made larger preparations for the war than they did, the fact remains that the war is a more difficult war than was anticipated in any quarter. Why? Let us be frank and honest towards our opponents. It is not only because of the difficulties of the country, but because of the enemy to whom we are opposed, for I venture to say that, man for man, there is no country in the world that could produce in the field a force so formidable as that we are meeting. To meet it we have, or shall have shortly, a force in South Africa of nearly 200,000 men. That is a fact of which we may well be proud. I venture to say that during the last thirty years there has not been a man, whether he be an Army reformer or an Army anti-reformer, a critic or an apologist, who has contemplated the need of this country taking from its shores a force of even half that number. What has caused the degree of denudation we hear of is that we have sent away not only what we regard as our largest available field force, but we have been obliged to send away a large part of the force we relied upon for the defence of these shores. Such a war was never contemplated by any Army authority I have ever been acquainted with, and equally little was it ever contemplated by those exultant, self-confident gentlemen who for the last half-dozen years have been piling up responsibilities
244
for this country in every part of the world. Everyone is conscious of one fact in those debates, that there has been something hanging over us—namely, the question of compulsory service. Whether you regard it as a will-o'-the-wisp, or as an ogre, or as a sword of Damocles, or as whatever figure you choose to employ, it has been impending over us; and there are some people who imagine that, notwithstanding the disclaimers that members of the Government and their supporters have made, these conjectural expedients, as they are called, which have been put forward have been expected, if not intended, to pave the way and prepare the mind of the country for the adoption of larger and more strenuous methods. Let me say I am not one of those who entertain that suspicion. It is too Machiavellian altogether for a number of English gentlemen to entertain any such scheme. I do not believe it. I believe the Government honestly rejected that method of obtaining sufficient forces for this country. The Government is one thing and the Prime Minister is another. We constantly find that assurances are given by the Government and that then at some early opportunity the Prime Minister throws doubt on all the assurances we have received and takes up doctrines and theories which have been rejected deliberately by his colleagues in the Government. The Prime Minister made a speech last night, and, so far as its general sobriety and general tone are concerned, we are thankful for it. But in the course of that speech he oratorically shrugged his shoulders and talked in this way. He said that other nations depend upon compulsory service and we stand alone in rejecting it, and therefore our resources are purely conjectural; we have no examples or precedents to guide us; the difficulty lies in the form of military organisation which you have deliberately chosen and to which you still adhere. If that is to argue against conscription I should like to know what arguing in favour of it would be. "Practically," said Lord Salisbury—this is my interpretation of his words—" we cannot adopt this wise and beneficial system because of the stubborn infatuation and prejudice of the British people." I agree as to the stubborn prejudice of the British people, but that is not by any means the whole

245
case; it does not stand upon that alone. It is perfectly true that the idea of compulsory service is repugnant to our people; but the greater, if not the higher, more forcible and more tangible objection is that it is wholly inapplicable to our Constitution. There is no analogy between our case in this respect and that of foreign countries. In the first place, foreign countries have not colonies mi any great scale. You could never take a conscript and send him to garrison and defend a tropical colony a great distance from his own soil. Then, again, Continental countries have to guard against the conterminous enemy who can hurl over the frontier his legions to an extent which is only limited by the number of men of fighting age he can put into the ranks, and, therefore, every country has to lay hold of every available man and thrust him into the line of battle in defence of his home. How do we stand? We are surrounded by the sea, and we have the Fleet to defend us. It is said the Fleet may be overwhelmed and possibly destroyed, or, at all events, overcome. In that case no armed force we could have in this country could save us. It may be said that the Fleet may be temporarily disabled, or that some calamity of that sort may befall us. Then, I would say, take half a dozen of your best soldiers and half a dozen of your best sailors, and lot them estimate what is the largest force that could in such circumstances be landed in this country. They would disagree among themselves, we know from experience. Take the biggest of their estimates and go to your skilled soldiers and say—How many men do you require in order to overwhelm this force? Then you know the force that is necessary for the defence of the country. But supposing you have conscription, whether for the Militia or for the Line, you would have a force far larger than could lie conveniently placed in line against any invading army. In fact, you would have a preposterously large force which you would not require. We are told it would not be universal compulsory service, but something like the ballot applied to the Militia. I am old enough to remember dim echoes of the grievances under the system of the Militia ballot many, many years ago. Are you to allow substitutes in your system of ballot? In that case you merely put a heavy burden on the poor
246
man from which the rich man is entirely relieved. But I presume you will not allow substitutes. Then what happens? You have the great duty of the personal defence of the sanctity of our country and the security of our homes, which ought to be the duty of every man capable-of bearing arms, committed only to the-few, and those are to be put into that position by what I should say is compulsion tempered by the ballot-box. Universal conscription I can understand, and in Continental countries it may be necessary; but conscription with the ballot seems to mo to be nothing but a combination of the press gang and the roulette table, which is neither a very dignified nor effective way of defending the country; and the application of any such system would have the effect, which it has had in the experience of this country in previous generations, of, if not absolutely wiping out, at all events greatly impairing the work of our voluntary system, so far as that existed alongside of it. Now, there are many other arguments, but I think I have said enough. If compulsion is to be discarded, and if a great addition to our forces is required, how is that great addition to be secured? The Government propose to encourage and develop the voluntary home army of defence. In that policy I entirely agree, and I am sure it will have the approval of every member of the House. But as to the Regular Army, what are we to do? Let it not be forgotten that we are, according to the experience of many years past, almost at the extreme limits of our recruiting resources. It comes and goes. Sometimes we have a good month, sometimes a bad month, according to the state of the labour market and other circumstances; but, roughly speaking, we are about at the limits of our recruiting resources. The recruiting business is always a nervous business. We are never quite sure if we will get the recruits we want. At present we take our men from the lower and less settled, perhaps more adventurous classes of the community, which has this one advantage, that we abstract little or the least that is possible from the wealth-creating and industrial resources of the country. But as I have said, we have well-nigh got to the limit of the supply from that class of the community. What are you to do if you want more men? You must increase the pay, it is

247
said. But, if you are going to increase the pay, let it be distinctly understood—and I am sure that in this I am speaking the opinion not only of civilians, but of all soldiers who have had to do with this matter—that you will do no good unless you give a very large addition to the pay. The mere giving of a penny, halfpenny, or twopence a day has been tried again and again, and although I will not say it was money thrown away, it has had no perceptible effect. If you want to have a larger supply of recruits, you must tap another class of the community altogether; you must compete in the well-paid labour market, and if you do so you will have to face three results. In the first place, you would incur a prodigious cost; in the second, the additional money paid for the existing class of recruits would be thrown away, because you would have got them at the present terms; and in the third place you would lose the services, as creators of wealth, of the men whom you would take from that higher class. It may be necessary to do this: but let us at ail events do it with our eyes open; let us understand that it will mean a heavy burden, in all these three respects, upon the country. But is this necessary? Our Army must be based upon our military requirements. Our military requirements depend upon our policy. The Prime Minister said last night—
"I do not admit that the trouble we are now in is due to any extension of the Empire. Our difficulties arise entirely from this war with the two Republics, and certainly that has arisen out of no extension of the Empire."
I do not wish, Mr. Lowther, to raise over again the controversies that are in full existence and force between us on the subject of this war, but I am afraid there are many of us at least who think that the extension of the Empire, the acquisition of fresh territory, is certainly to be found among the influences which led to this war. As I have said, I do not wish to recall that matter, which has been debated at considerable length already; but, leaving that aside, do our difficulties Arise solely from this war with the two Republics? Suppose we could cover our heads and hide from our eyes with a "white sheet" the rest of the surface of the globe except these two Republics—if we could keep out of consideration all the globe except the British Empire and the two Republics, what a relief it would be
248
to our minds! But how can we confine ourselves solely to them? Have we no complications, difficulties, and dangers in other parts of the world? Leaving out of consideration other continents, let us look at the continent of Africa alone. Is there nothing in North Africa, in West Africa, in East Africa, which may not at any moment call for the use of troops? We have gone on for some years anxious apparently for one thing only, namely, that we should be beforehand with our neighbours in securing the possible future advantages of great undeveloped countries; we have thought of the possible advantages, and have let the risks take care of themselves, and thus we have mortgaged our strength. This is the policy whose fruit we see in the present difficulties. Last year I ventured to express my doubts on this very ground of the wisdom of our great enterprises, brilliant and successful as they were, in the Soudan. I pointed out the tremendous strain upon our military resources—the difficult and dangerous position it may develop into in the course of time—involved in our having a great equatorial Empire in the heart of Africa. Is there no cause for anxiety there now? Is there no one there ready to take advantage of our I South African embarrassment? If there is not, and I hope there is not, it is very fortunate for us. Is there any one of those possessions or spheres of influence for which we may not, at any moment, receive a demand for troops? But it is not, however, the possible demands from localities that we have to consider mainly. It is rather the temper and disposition towards us which the line of policy persistently pursued by this country has created in the minds not only of Governments, but of peoples, with whom we, the masses of the people of this country, have no interest and no desire except to remain on the most friendly and cordial terms. I am only dealing with this question now as it affects the Army. I am quite ready, let it be understood, to assent to any proposal for increasing the Army, in the way of building up deficiencies either in any particular branch of the service or in the equipment of the Army in order to make it efficient and strong. But what I wish to make clear before hand is that we shall be no party to any such alteration in the character of our military forces as may be designed here-

249
after to facilitate an aggressive or ambitious policy. Our Empire, Sir, is vast and it is strong. Why is it strong? Because it is an Empire of peace, of commerce, of kindly relations between self-governing communities. It cannot be maintained, this great Empire, as a military Empire. It is beyond the power of man to do it. By bringing into it the military spirit, by making a great part of it rest upon the sword, you will not add either to its extent or its strength. On the contrary, you will take from both, and you will be the worst friends of the Empire which you profess to serve.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Sir, I am the last person to complain of the right hon. Gentleman's intervent on in this debate and I do not even complain that he has chosen this rather late hour in the debate for making the important and interesting speech which he has just given us, because, as I gather from h s speech, it really has had its birth and origin not in any of the debates that have taken place in this House, but in an important and interesting discussion which has taken place elsewhere. But let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, on having wholly avoided one fault which has not been so successfully avoided by another important speaker elsewhere. I was glad to hear that there was no note of panic in any word which the right hon. Gentleman has said in this House. He did not come here and in tones trembling with emotion tell us that the Empire is in danger unless we mobilise the Fleet. The right hon. Gentleman looks with a colder and saner eye on the present position of the country—a position of great and unexpected difficulty, which we are bound to do everything in our power to remedy as rapidly and as effectually as possible. Nevertheless, it is a position which does not justify tones of panic, least of all from any gentleman or noble Lord who has, and deserves to have, the right to lead public opinion in these great Imperial matters. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the question of compulsory service, and here again he made the text of his speech some words which fell from Lord Salisbury in another place. He was candid enough to read the words of Lord Salisbury, and anybody listening to these
250
words as read would certainly have been extremely puzzled to extract from them the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman put into them. He put upon them the interpretation that the Prime Minister-of this country was ardently desirous of instantaneously introducing a system of compulsory service, but was prevented by the crass stupidity and want of public spirit of his countrymen. I do not think any such meaning can, by any process of interpretation or exegesis, be read into Lord Salisbury's words. There was a speaker in another place last night who did refer in language almost unambiguous to-the subject of compulsory service, and who indicated obscurely, but not unintelligibly, that his leanings were in that direction. That speaker was not Lord Salisbury, but a late colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, not named by him in his speech, but against whom, I rather collected, almost every word of that speech was directed. The right hon. Gentleman advised the Government to put into one room six of the most capable sailors and six of the most capable soldiers they could find, and to ask these representatives of the two great services to fight it out amongst themselves and come to some conclusion, if possible, as to the number of soldiers which any foreign Power could land on these shores on the supposition that our fleet at sea had been defeated or temporarily decoyed away. As the right hon. Gentleman himself anticipated, the debate he wishes to get up under these conditions would probably prove a stormy and inconclusive one, and he did not contemplate as a possibility that a unanimous verdict would be given by this particular jury. But let me remind him that a calculation, not arrived at precisely in that way, but arrived at after an interchange of ideas between representatives of the Admiralty and the War Office, has long been made; and that the general outcome of that was that this country ought to have, in order to make itself absolutely secure against any contingency reasonable men could contemplate, three army corps, as well as a sufficiency of forces to garrison our principal arsenals and military stations.
SIR JOHN COLOMB (): Will my right hon. friend say when that interchange of ideas between these departments took place?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it was in 1888, but I am not aware that there has been any change either in the military situation in Europe or in the balance of power between European nations which has rendered that estimate, necessarily a rough one, inadequate. The object of the Government, acting on that professional conclusion, is to find, if possible, these three army corps and these necessary garrisons. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that by the very nature of the case that cannot rapidly be satisfactorily or effectually done. We admit fully and freely that having sent out this vast number of men to South Africa we have not, by the nature of the case, in his country the material, in a sufficient state of trained preparation, that we should like to have. We have never tried to hoodwink the public upon it, we have never represented our position as bettor than it is, but what we have said is, "Given that position, we have put a plan before the House which, in the main, we do not think the criticism of the last three days has effectually shaken." While it is perfectly true and natural, and, in my opinion, justifiable, that the scheme of the Government should be received without enthusiasm, without any great expression of satisfaction, it is equally true, and even more important, that nobody, as far as I know, has been able to suggest any great source of strength which we have left untapped. If that lie so, I do not think it necessary to labour any further the details of the scheme. But one point has been raised which I must deal with before I sit down. The right hon. Gentleman has in the course of his speech attributed our present difficulties to the increase of our Empire and to the new responsibilities which that increase has brought upon us. Sir, is there any justification in the facts of contemporary history for that contention? I myself am not one of those who watch Imperial expansion wholly without misgiving or wholly "without a sense of anxiety." I think it is necessary, but that it ought not to be undertaken with a light heart. But when I am asked whether our present difficulties, or any difficulties we may contemplate in the future, are due to that expansion, I think an impartial and critical survey of what is going on in all parts of the world would lead to precisely opposite conclusions. I agree that Egypt has increased our re-
252
sponsibilities. That has been admitted by every Imperial politician either in this country or out of it. But these responsibilities were undertaken nearly twenty years ago by a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, and I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman or any section of the party to which he belongs will come to this House and say our Egyptian responsibilities are responsibilities out of which we should creep. There they are, and we must support them, and any military burden which those responsibilities throw upon us must be cheerfully borne. But, turning away from Egypt, on which the right hon. Gentleman is in harmony with us, what colonial expansion has there been of recent years which can, in any serious sense, be said to have added to the military burden of the Empire?
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): Rhodesia.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously mean to suggest that if Rhodesia had not come within the British sphere of influence we should have had no troubles in South Africa? This contest between us and the two Dutch Republics, merely looking at it in its military aspect, proves that not Rhodesia, not Natal, but the possession of any colony in South Africa might at any moment have brought us into conflict with these two Republics. We are told that a more dexterous diplomacy might have put it off. I do not agree with that. I will not argue it. It does not touch the question of military responsibility—indeed, the longer the contest was put off, from a military point of view, so much the more obviously, if it did come, would the contest be a burden on the military resources of the country. How does colonial expansion in South Africa increase our responsibilities? What great burden has it thrown on our Army system? Although we did not know it, and it was concealed from us and the most expert military critics, inside and outside the War Office, and even the omniscient Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean—none of them ever suggested that one reason why we should augment our military forces in this country and keep them in the highest state for immediate action was that we had on our borders a not friendly, but

253
very powerful military State in the shape of the Transvaal Republic. Again, surely that shows that these military responsibilities date from nothing which has occurred of recent years, but from that initial operation by which we became possessed of our colonies in South Africa.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The raid.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then there is one other part of the world in which we must, I am afraid, contemplate an increasing burden of military responsibility, or, at all events, a burden which time is not likely to lessen, and that is India. Is the military burden which India throws upon us due to recent expansion? Is that due to the aggressive policy of this party or that? Is it due to the greedy appetite of John Bull for more territory? No, Sir. It arises from the inevitable progress of events in Asia, the character of which is well known to the House. That burden of military responsibility I boldly say has nothing whatever to do, is not even remotely connected, with any expansion of the Empire which has taken place within the memory of man. Well, then, surely it was unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to drag these anti-Imperialist ideas into the present discussion. If he believes, as he tells us lie believes, that our responsibilities in Egypt are there and must be recognised, if ha tells us, as I believe he would tell us, that it is our bounden duty to maintain against the possibility of warlike aggression our colonies in South Africa, if he tells us, as I have no doubt he would tell us, that our Indian Empire must be safeguarded against the possibility of aggression, then he agrees with us that the many divisions of our Empire, all the most burdensome in a military sense of our responsibilities, have nothing to do with the expansion which he condemns, hut are based deep upon incidents in the history of the Empire, they are rooted in the past, and have nothing whatever to do with any recent transactions for which this Government or our immediate predecessors are responsible. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had ended with some suggestion as 10 how our increased responsibilities should be met. He occupied a great deal of time in showing how all the schemes hinted at by his political friends in
254
another place were not schemes he tolerated or would adopt, but never from the beginning to the end of his speech did he make a single practical suggestion for increasing our means of military defence. In that it seems to me the speech, of which I otherwise have nothing to complain, suffered from a disease which has attacked many speeches made in the course of these debates, that they have been critical but not constructive; and at this time we specially want constructive suggestions, and mere criticism, barren criticism, is largely thrown away. We have no bigoted affection for our plan. I do not for a moment contend that it will do more than fill up in a not wholly satisfactory way the great gaps the war in South Africa has left in our defence, and we would welcome from any quarter of the House practical suggestions by which that plan might lie improved.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Irish Volunteers.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But however valuable speeches may have been, our hopes of constructive suggestions have been disappointed, and I am only sorry the right hon. Gentleman, making as he did a speech wholly without party bias, or at any rate not couched in controversial terms, moderate in its tenor and admirably free from any note of panic—I can only regret that, making a speech having all these merits, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to add anything, so far as I know, to the scheme we have laid before the House, or in any way to aid the Government in the difficult and heavy task which has been thrown upon their shoulders.
CAPTAIN NORTON (): Now that we have had the opportunity of considering the scheme which has been laid before us by the Government, and the further advantage of hearing and reading speeches of great importance made, not only in another place, but also here by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, I desire to offer a few criticisms with reference to the scheme as a whole. I think it will not be denied that it has not created much enthusiasm throughout the country at large. I have no desire to criticise the scheme in any unfriendly spirit, but the scheme as a whole, as it has been developed and put

255
forward by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War, seemed to be very much like the prospectus of a company promoter. It consisted in a great measure of "castles in the air," and unless the Under Secretary of State for War has some fairy godfather I fail to see how the scheme he developed is to be brought into operation. The fairy godfather in his case may be said to be Patriotism. I do not deny that a great wave of patriotism is now passing over the country. But if we are a patriotic people we are at the same time a practical and businesslike people, and with regard to some of the views put forward in connection with the Volunteers, and more especially in connection with obtaining a sufficient number of recruits, the anticipations of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War may be said in a great measure to be based on imagination. I am not one of those who are going to complain of the expansion of the Empire. I believe you cannot avoid the responsibility. If we are to be, as we are now, the greatest commercial nation of the world, and maintain command of the seas, we cannot do so without great risk of expansion of our Empire, in order to neutralise the expansion which other nations seek. My complaint is that the Government of the day has failed to take this state of things into consideration in conjunction with their state of military preparations. There will be, I am afraid, a tendency to go back to the old happy-go-lucky style without initiating a scheme of complete reform of our military system. I desire to look at the scheme from two points of view—first of all as an emergency measure, and secondly as a scheme of home defence. I ask the Under Secretary of State for War first, what is the object of putting in this 110,000 men as being still in the country belonging to the regiments? Does he not know that of this number 98,000 consist of immature men, that is to say, boys, and of men invalided or who from a physical point of view are not fitted for service abroad? Under those circumstances there would not be any advantage derived by the forces from having a large number of men not fit to go to the front at the present moment. If they are not fit to go to the front in South Africa they are not fit to defend us in this country. Then with regard to the fifteen new battalions, where are they to come from? Where is the hon.
256
Gentleman going to get 50,000 men in the course of twelve months? Fifty thousand men will be necessary to keep up those fifteen battalions, together with the general recruiting.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I obtained 40,000 men last year.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Quite so; but how many will be wanted this year? You require 15,000 men to form the new battalions, and, in addition to that, you want sufficient to feed the army in South Africa. We may have to send out another 50,000 men to South Africa, and shortly after another 50,000, owing to the difficult character of the country and the difficulty of safeguarding the lines of communication, and the number of troops required will be very large. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a suggestion with regard to recruiting, but he did not solve the question. Now, there are others who believe there is a solution to the question, and that solution is undoubtedly to have a Volunteer army, which shall be highly paid, and to have as an adjunct to that army forces for home service, and for home service only. I shall be told, perhaps, that the Volunteer forces and the Militia will answer that purpose; but is it possible for Volunteers. to give the necessary time to become efficient soldiers? My suggestion, therefore, is that instead of attempting to increase the Volunteers and Militia in. great numbers, the right hon. Gentleman should weed out those who cannot follow up the plan he has laid down, and there is no doubt the Volunteer force would be a better force if it was not so large, but more efficient. Now, the standard of troops has been lowered to 5ft. 2in. in order to obtain drivers in the artillery, who do the hardest work in the Army. There are a large number of undersized men in the country who are not fit to do the work of artillery drivers, but would be of undoubted use as mounted infantry. Does it not occur to every Member of the House that a large number of the men expected to form Reserve battalions are married and settled down, and are not likely to leave their present positions for the sake of the £30 bounty which it is suggested should be offered? Furthermore, it would be a very expensive force, seeing that this bounty means a sum of nearly £1,000,000

257
added to the Estimates. As regards the Militia, where are those 30,000 men, of whom that branch of the service is short at the present time, to come from? This question of producing recruits for the Army, Militia, and Volunteers resembles a game of "post." Certainly, as regards the two first of those categories, almost the whole of the recruits come from the same class; while as for the men in the Volunteer artillery coming out for three months, the idea is preposterous. Where are the men to come from who have three months leisure to give to military duties in the course of the year? The Under Secretary for War stated that his scheme as regards the Volunteers had been so arranged in order that certain regiments in certain districts—presumably mining and other districts where men could spare the time—might be able to go in for the month's training, and that whore battalions could not go for the larger period they might go for the shorter time. It is extremely doubtful whether even in this year and under the present circumstances you will get many battalions to camp out for more than one week, and then it is only right that they should be paid handsomely. I would advocate as a minimum that £1 per man should be added to the capitation grant. As regards the cavalry, of which I may be presumed to know something, the idea of producing these proposed extra regiments, even in the current year, is ludicrous to the last degree. If we were able to procure the very best class of men, the men most likely to produce cavalry soldiers, the most efficient cavalry officers in the Empire could not train them to a state of efficiency by the end of the year. There is one very important portion of the service which has not been alluded to, in which I take some interest, and the deficiencies in which I have pointed out year after year—the Army Medical Department. I was told in this House that two army corps could be despatched to South Africa complete in all respects, including the Army Medical Department, and yet no sooner has war broken out than we have to draw upon the civilian element. L do not mean to infer that the civilian element is not thoroughly competent in all respects, but there are administrative duties in connection with the Army Medical Department, and those who have no training as regards administrative duties cannot by any possibility be
258
expected to discharge them efficiently As far as the question of home defence is concerned this scheme is a transparent fraud, and is merely throwing dust into the eyes of the people of England. You talk about 400,000 men. Those 400,000 men exist only on paper. They have neither transport nor guns, and the necessary transport and guns cannot be produced without months and months of hard work. As has been stated before, our real defence lies in the Fleet, and I hope when the First Lord of the Admiralty brings in his see that something is being done with reference to the Reserve Fleet, and the question of producing a full supply of men to man the fleet in case of emergency. There are other matters in which the Army can co-operate with the Navy. I take it as a foregone conclusion that mine fields have been laid down in all our great harbours, and that steps have been taken to place quickfiring guns in all our forts. But even then it is absolutely necessary that you should have a mobile force complete in all particulars, as to both guns and to transport; otherwise, in the event of a mishap to your Fleet, your 400,000 men in the auxiliary forces, including the remnant of the Regular Army still with us, would be perfectly useless. There is another point to which I have not yet alluded. The Volunteers happen to be at this moment 75,000 below their strength. I would be glad to know, with the present crisis in view, how many of those 75,000 have been procured, and whether we are likely to obtain that number when we are at the same time making greater demands upon that force both as to efficiency and as to the length of time the men must serve. I can only say that if the Government succeed in sending the necessary number of troops to South Africa, in filling up the voids in the Militia, at the same time creating this force of cavalry, and bringing up the Volunteers to full strength, in my opinion the miracles of Bible history will sink into insignificance compared with the miracle which will then have been performed by Her Majesty's Government. I have already alluded to weeding out the Volunteers, but may I venture to suggest with reference to that particular service that some attempt should be made to form a Volunteer reserve, composed of men between the ages of twenty

259
and thirty-five years, who shall be bachelors, get a larger capitation grant, and be drafted into what I will call a first-class Volunteer reserve. There are many men in this country with fixed occupations, who, while they loathe barrack life, would be extremely anxious to see active service. Many of these men exist in the Volunteers, and that they would be glad of such an opportunity has been proved by the way in which they have volunteered for the front in the present emergency. They would, of course, be men in the prime of life and of the highest efficiency. As the men married or their avocations became such as to prevent their going to the front they would fall into, so to speak, a second class Volunteer reserve, and be liable for; garrison duty at home. Then I would strongly advocate the advisability of forming standing camps in as close proximity as needs be to the large centres of population, so that there should be great facilities for Volunteers to go under canvas for a few days whenever they had the opportunity. It would not only please the Volunteers, but add greatly to their efficiency, if some officer cognisant of the views and ideas of that force was put upon the staff' at the Horse Guards, assisted by other officers equally conversant with the Volunteer movement. But the most important point concerning, detail which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman is the question of the supply of officers. If there is one thing more than another that would popularise both the Militia and the Volunteer forces as regards officers, it would be the giving of a certain number of commissions, not only to the junior ranks, but here and there a certain proportion to officers in the higher ranks of those forces. There are many men now serving in those branches of the service who by accident have not been able to enter the Regular Army, but who would make great sacrifices to do so, and it would certainly give a tremendous incentive to the entire force if some small proportion of picked men in the Militia and the Volunteers were selected at the present time for commissions in the Regular Army. I have already urged the advisability of promoting men from the ranks, and the hon. Gentleman gave me a pledge that that would be done. But several months have now elapsed since the outbreak of hostilities, during which
260
many non-commissioned officers have-greatly distinguished themselves, and the country is waiting to see when they are to be rewarded. It is a question in which the country feels the deepest interest. There are many men in the non-commissioned ranks who are admirably fitted for the positions of officers, and I would suggest that those who have so distinguished themselves should be promoted at once, or with the least possible delay. There is one aspect of the question concerning which we have had no information whatever, and that is the question of the expense. Not the slightest indication has been given as to the approximate cost of this entire scheme when carried out. I have always thought the late Commander-in-chief of the British Army put the matter very concisely when he said that it was for the British nation to consider whether they were prepared to pay the blood tax, or what proportion they would pay in hard sash. Our military expenditure may be enormous, but I am disposed to think that, all things considered, the people of this country would rather pay a very much larger sum in taxation than be obliged to undergo any form of conscription. The Leader of the House said that the scheme had not been shaken in any respect. I think he takes a somewhat hopeful view of the situation. Many of us cannot see where the men are to come from to fill up the Regular Army, while as regards the Auxiliary forces the consensus of opinion throughout the country is that the scheme is impossible. However, I hope the Under Secretary for War will do me the honour of paying some attention to the few suggestions I have ventured to offer. I think he will agree that I have not attempted to criticise his scheme from any party point of view or in any really unfriendly spirit.
MR. JEFFREYS (): I think the country has received with satisfaction the proposals of the Government, and I hope measures will be taken to put; our Army in as strong a position as the Navy has been put in recent years. When I hear that the Army has been increased by twelve battalions, when I bear in mind: that last year the increase was only to the extent of three battalions, and even then; there was a great difficulty in raising them, I cannot help thinking that if we are to increase our Army by twelve battalions

261
we shall have to increase the rate of pay. The hon. Gentleman has already said something about increasing the pay. In a year like the present, when men are anxious to join the colours, it may not be difficult to raise this number, but in ordinary years we shall not get them without making the pay higher. Throughout the country labourers are getting higher wages than formerly, and when we have to compete with labour we cannot expect them to join the colours under present conditions. But there is a very important matter to be considered before we increase the Army, and that is we must build barracks for them. I remember the class of huts at Aldershot, which were not fit to house anybody. They were erected after the Crimean War, and had been made to last over thirty years. Therefore, I say that before we raise these twelve new battalions barracks should be built to house them. Farm labourers have to be well housed, and the only way to get them is to give them good houses to live in. I am perfectly certain that you cannot attract men to the colours unless you provide them with good barracks. With regard to the Auxiliary forces, I am glad to hear that the Artillery is to be increased, because it is one of the most important branches of the service. I should like to ask if my hon. friend intends to take steps to provide them with modern guns and ammunition. I do not wish to go into the details now as to the ammunition or guns, because the country is now at a very critical stage, and the hon. Gentleman would not like to expose his hand to foreign critics. I should like the authorities at the War Office to consider what would have been our position at the beginning of this war if we had not been able to borrow guns from the Navy. I think the Army ought to have a very good reserve of guns, and it is a very dangerous policy to borrow from the Navy, because in certain circumstances the Navy might have required those guns. I merely throw this out as a suggestion, for this war has certainly brought home to us the fact that unless we have a good reserve supply of guns and ammunition for the Army and the Navy, we might find ourselves in a very serious position when opposed to foreign countries. It has been said that the Militia have to go out for five or six months training. This is an exceptional year, and I have no doubt employers will
262
allow them to go. I understood also that in future years the Militia period of training is to be increased, and instead of going out for twenty-eight days they are to go out for about three months. I hope my hon. friend will clearly state whether that is not the intention. That is the impression in the country, because I have received a letter from a gentleman asking if it is true that the Militia have to go out for three months, and stating that if it is so it would be impossible for farm labourers to join the Militia. If the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that it is only in case of emergency that this is so, I think it will tend to assure employers throughout the country. There is now a very strong patriotic feeling in the country, but I believe that at the present time the Militia are 30,000 short of their establishment, and employment is good in all parts of the country. Of course when there is an emergency like the present and the men are called for, I have no doubt that they will respond readily to the call, but when wages are higher in all other industries, so the wages of the Militia will have to be higher before you can substantially increase the service. I desire to ask my hon. friend what he proposes to do with the reserve of officers, for at present there are a great many men who retire in the prime of life. I heard of a man, forty-two years of age, who is a retired captain in the Army. Surely such gentlemen in the reserve of officers ought to be called up to be officers in the Auxiliary forces, or to serve in some other department. A great many of our retired officers are receiving high rates of pensions, and are doing nothing. If you encourage them by a payment of about another £50 a year they would, no doubt, be glad to undertake this work. I cannot help thinking that it would be a much wiser policy to employ these officers, if not in our Regular forces, at any rate to officer the Auxiliary forces. My hon. friend alluded in his speech the other night to the country gentlemen, and said he hoped they would stand by the Government in this emergency and try and supply men to the Volunteers. I am quite sure that the country gentlemen have done that. Men have flocked to the colours of all kinds, and I know rich men who have gone out to South Africa to serve as ordinary troopers in the Yeomanry, and all honour to them

263
for doing so. I know of farmers' sons who have given up their business and joined the Yeomanry to fight the battles of their country, and the men of all classes in the rural districts have nobly responded to the call of duty, and I believe that in any year of emergency my hon. friend may call upon them to join and they will readily do so. When my hon. friend's turn comes to make a speech I hope he will state clearly that when these men are called upon to join the colours and go out for five or six months it is only in case of an emergency, and that the Volunteers are to go tinder canvas for one month only this year, and that in after years they will not be asked to go under canvas for a longer period than they have hitherto done.
MR. LOUGH (): It seems to me that in the speeches we have heard up to the present we are having a rehash of the debate which has been now extended over three days. Our object tonight is to vote a very large sum of money asked for by the Government for this war, and I should like to draw attention to the amount of this Vote in order that we may do our duty in regard to these large sums which have to be paid by this country. It is said that the country is willing to pay anything that is necessary for the war, but this does not do away with the right of criticism on our part as to the amount, and as to the form in which the Vote is asked for. I have tried to get some answer from the Under Secretary of State for War with regard to the particulars which have been given to the House, but so far the answer I have received is very unsatisfactory. They make one thing clear, and that is that with regard to the particulars of the expenditure which we may obtain this afternoon we shall be unable to get sufficient information to enable these matters to be fully considered by this House. The hon. Member told me yesterday that details of every sixpence of the expenditure would be published. The particulars would, however, be published about two years hence, and I do not think anyone will consider it worth while to discuss them then. Therefore, let us take the only opportunity we have got, and look at this large sum, and perhaps the Government will be able to throw a little more light upon it. The Vote is for £13,000,000, but the Paper deals
264
with £23,000,000, which includes £10,000,000 voted in the short session last year. The original Estimates amounted to £20,000,000, but now the Estimates are increased to £43,000,000. I think some idea of the necessity for further information on the subject will be obtained if hon. Members will look at the large book published containing full details of the Army Estimates in regard to the expenditure of the first £10,000,000., whereas we get nothing but this wretched little leaflet—which is a mere skeleton outline—about the other £13,000,000. I would like to ask one or two questions about this. How has the amount of £23,000,000 been fixed upon?
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak about the £13,000,000, but he cannot go back to the £10,000,000, because that has already been disposed of.
MR. LOUGH: Then I desire to know how this £13,000,000 has been arrived at. The hon. Member told us that the first £10,000,000 was based on estimates made when this question was first brought before the House. But all the estimates of the Government have been wrong in regard to this war, and surely some more details should be given to us of the basis upon which this large sum has been arrived at. I would just like to draw attention to the form in which the particulars are given to us. It is a sort of imitation in blank of the Army Estimates. There are altogether thirteen Votes in the Army Estimates, and all of them are increased in this Paper. Some of them are increased by very large amounts, and amounts so large that surely some further explanation ought to be given about them. Vote 1 is increased by about £3,000,000, and I would like to ask a. little information on this subject of the pay of our soldiers. How has this excess been arrived at? Perhaps only £2,000,000 refers to the present Vote., but wherever the excess may be, I should like to know something about the calculation that has been made. I am sure the country would like to know a little more about the question of the pay of the soldiers. One of the most effective ways of getting men for the Army, would be, without going so far as to pay them on the scale of artisans, to show a-little more liberality in the pay of the-

265
soldiers. That is a question which comes up very strongly in connection with the arrangements being made in regard to the present war. I desire to ask how will the Volunteers and Yeomanry and other additional forces sent out be paid? With regard to the colonial troops, will they be paid by this country as well as by the colonies 'Allusion has already been made to this subject, and I think we ought to have some more information upon it.
MR. WYNDHAM: It has been understood throughout that they will be paid from the Imperial revenue.
MR. LOUGH: I was going to say that the hon. Gentleman has made allusion to this point, but his interjection shows that he deprecates criticism on this question.
MR. WYNDHAM: I do not deprecate criticism. If the hon. Gentleman has an alternative proposal let him state it, but let him not suggest when I have given them.
MR. LOUGH: I have not the g intention of reflecting on the hon. Gentleman. There is, however, a great deal of dissatisfaction in the minds of ordinary soldiers because they are only getting a small amount of pay while they are fighting with equal gallantry with other men receiving four o or five times more pay. I may have been misinformed, hut I am told that is true, and if the hon. Gentleman would throw some light on it it would be a considerable satisfaction. Anything which tends to create dissatisfaction in the minds of men fighting for the country should, if possible, be avoided. I observe that the Vote for medical services is increased by £70,000, making in all an increase of £120,000. I am sure the country would like a little information regarding this Vote. I have already observed that the hospital work is being well done, and that those great surgeons who have gone out deserve a great deal of credit. But the amount now asked for appears very small considering how disastrous the war has been. I cannot think that £70,000 now with £50,000 before is sufficient, considering the extra work which has been and will be thrown on the Medical Department up to March 31st, and I would ask
266
the hon. Gentleman to tell us how this estimate has been arrived at. There are three other Votes to which I will jointly refer—namely, the Votes for the Militia, the Yeomanry, and the Volunteers. I am astonished that the Vote for the Yeomanry is increased by only £5,000, and that for the Volunteers by only £15,000, up to March 31st. After all we have heard in these debates, these increases seem to me to be extremely small, but perhaps the smallness of the items may be explained by the fact that the pay is included in another Vote. Still I think the increase for the Yeomanry is exceedingly small, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will throw some light on it. That increase is as strikingly small as the next Vote—the Vote for transport—is strikingly large. An increase of £5,000,000 is asked for transport, making £10,000,000 altogether. We have not had any explanation of this Vote. I do not think it was referred to in October, and some details regarding it would be acceptable to the Committee. There have been some very unpleasant criticisms regarding the inadequate arrangements for the transport of horses, and in some of the transports there was a great deal of suffering and many horses were lost. I believe, however, there has been a considerable improvement, and if some details were given as to the steps taken to provide suitable transports they would be received with satisfaction. In connection with this Vote there has been a great deal of criticism as to the ships which were chartered, and the very extravagant rates which were paid, but I can imagine the difficulty of getting everything ready in a hurry. However, a statement as to the principle on which the Admiralty and the War Office acted in the matter would be acceptable. The only other item to which I wish to direct attention is the increase for arms and ammunition. I wish to ask if the chief expenditure has been at Woolwich, and if at Woolwich, has the staff been greatly increased or has it worked a longer number of hours. In putting these questions I desire to say that I readily appreciate that the money cost of the war is the smallest cost. The country has incurred a far greater cost in loss of life; but, nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman would give us information on the points I have mentioned it would be received with satisfaction.
MR. BARTLEY (): I do not wish to criticise the Estimates in ' any way, because I am quite satisfied that all the country desires is that the Government should ask for everything necessary in order to bring this war to a complete and satisfactory termination. I should like, however, to say that I consider this arrangement entirely as an emergency arrangement. I consider that this large expenditure—which I think not too large—must be regarded as an emergency expenditure, and that the country feels that it is voting this money willingly and ungrudgingly on the distinct understanding that when the war is over there will be a complete inquiry into everything that has taken place. There are many questions; which we have no right in the public interest to inquire into at present, but which we are bound to inquire into later, not factiously, but with a very serious mind, and in voting for this money and for everything else the Government want to carry on the war I am voting on the distinct understanding that all these arrangements are temporary, and that when the war is over there will be a complete inquiry into all these matters. Nothing less will satisfy the country. To suppose that the scheme before us is for the future management of our Army seems to me quite out of the question. Everyone will agree that the various items which the Under Secretary for War said were to be permanent should be permanent in any scheme, such as the large increase in artillery, which was obvious. But what I feel, and what I am sure my constituents feel, is that in doing everything we can to support the Government we distinctly understand that as soon as the war is over there must be a complete investigation, and that steps will be taken to render it impossible that the misfortunes which have happened in this war shall happen again.
MR. POWER (): The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War stated this evening that he always endeavoured to give information courteously. For my part, and I think I may also speak for my colleagues in the matter, we have never received from the hon. Gentleman anything but courtesy. Our experience of the hon. Gentleman goes back to the troubled days when he was
268
private secretary to the First Lord of the Treasury, when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Irish Office, and I think I may say without fear of contradiction that even in those days our communications to him were always treated with courtesy. I have listened for many years to the criticisms passed in this House by military Members and others with regard to the military organisation of this country. There was one test as to whether these criticisms were valuable or not, and that test was the stern reality of war, not with Dervishes, but with a civilised foe, and I am bound to admit that the actual reality of war has proved that these criticisms, and perhaps especially the criticisms of the hon. Member for West Belfast, had a great deal of truth in them I think the Government will have very little or no trouble in getting this sum or any other sum they ask for during the war fever. For my part I regret it, but I know that, whether the Government are right or wrong, hon. Members will support them. As a man said to mo, "It is all very well to support your friends, but the support we want is to be supported when we are in the wrong." What has this country to gain by this war, and this vast expenditure? It has no glory to gain from an unjustifiable and unwarrantable I war, which was entered into in the interests not of the people, but of the capitalists of this country. I must say that the criticisms of hon. Members in this. House have been free from the vulgarity prevailing in this country at present. Hon. Members have not endeavoured to run down the merits of their foe, and I think it is only dignified and honourable that the Boers should be regarded as a foe worthy of your steel. I trust a large part of the money voted will be devoted to medical appliances. The Boers have proved themselves not i only brave but humane. Their treatment of the British prisoners who have fallen into their hands redounds to their credit, and their consideration for them has been, greater than you have shown towards Boer prisoners. You have put these Boer prisoners on board ship, where they have little or no exercise, and the very-fact of being on board ship is a penalty to some people. I was very glad to hear I the First Lord say that arrangements have been made for placing these Boer prisoners on land, and I only regret that

269
these were not made long since. The treatment which the Boers have meted out to your prisoners, and the dignified reception they have given them in Pretoria, prove that these men, heroic and gallant in the field, know how to behave to brave men who fall into their hands. Of course, we hear stories of the Boers firing on the white flag. I am not inclined to believe them. I firmly believe that many of these incidents occurred from misapprehension; and coming from a country which has been maligned in the same manner, we on these benches discount a good many of the reports of outrages by the Boers. I want to know what praise is to be gained by this war? Had anyone told you last October that the Boers, who had then invaded your territory, would be still there at this date, you would have said he was a fool. The Boers have proved themselves worthy of independence, and of their share of victory, which I, for my part, hope they will obtain in the struggle in which they are now engaged It may be asked what interest we Trish Members have in this war? Well, we have a very substantial interest a dismal interest as well—that Irish blood is being poured out on both sides in what we believe to be a most unjustifiable war. If diplomatists had used the language which soldiers in this House have used we would not have been at war to-day; but the melancholy fact is that the diplomatic language and speeches of the Colonial Secretary were worthy of a Cheap Jack.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows that he is not entitled to enter into that question. I have mentioned that several times, and he must confine himself to the Vote under discussion.
MR. POWER: I recognise, Mr. Lowther, what you have said, and I will try and confine myself to the lines you have laid down. In this large Vote we are asked to pass I find a considerable sum for' Volunteers. Well, in that matter we have no interest, although we shall be called upon to pay the piper for your Volunteers. I suppose it will be recognised that the Protestant Volunteers in Ireland in 1782 produced Grattan's Parliament, and if those Volunteers had not been disbanded the Union would not have been carried. We are called upon
270
to pay an enormous proportion of the cost of this war, with which we have no sympathy; and the most aggravating part of it is that you know you are calling upon us to pay an unfair proportion.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to adhere to the ordinary rules of debate. If he does not intend to approach the Vote under discussion he must resume his seat.
MR. POWER: We all know that we pay a proportion of this large sum which is absolutely beyond our capacity; but if you, Mr. Lowther, lay down the ruling that I cannot enter on to that subject I will not persevere. My hon. friends beside me think it their duty to protest by every means in their power against this war, which we believe might have been avoided, and which is bringing untold suffering on many of our people. Whether it be pleasant or unpleasant, we will be bound to vote at every opportunity against the continuance of the war, which brings you no glory, and us unbearable expense.
MR. PENN (): The Under Secretary for War has spoken of the very large increase in the artillery, the supply of which is putting pressure on the Department at Woolwich. I would suggest that the supply of guns might be met by tapping fresh sources. It is within my own knowledge that at the time of the Crimean War a large demand was made on the marine engineering firms in this country—so large that they were unable to meet it themselves. They got over the difficulty, however, by distributing working drawings and gauges to engineers in places unconnected in every way with marine engineering,, and so got pieces of machinery which they put together. I venture to state that if the War Office took some such line as that, they might obtain from private manufacturers, altogether unconnected with ordnance making, who were not able or willing to undertake the production of complete guns, pieces of guns which could be put together and finished at Woolwich. By such a system the pressure at Woolwich, Elswick, and other places where artillery is manufactured, might be very largely relieved. The hon. Gentleman has asked for practical sugges-

271
tions, and I venture to throw this out for the consideration of the War Office.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): I have endeavoured to get some information from the Under Secretary for War by questions as to the treatment of some regiments of Irish Militia, but have failed, and if we do not get that information I shall later on move the reduction of this Vote. I see it has been stated in the press in England and Ireland that undue pressure has been put upon these Irish Militia regiments to induce or compel them to volunteer for service at the front. People like myself, who are not versed in military matters, would like to know what are the legal methods by which Militia regiments raised in Ireland and transported to England can be compelled to go abroad on active service. I do not lay anything against the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary himself; but there seems to me an organised system of evasion in the War Office to prevent a straight explanation being given. It is in the interest of the War Office to state plainly what the law is. It is reported that the men of a regiment of Militia now stationed at Sheffield were by some means, by hook or by crook, induced to consent to go abroad. It is to the credit of an Irish journal that it put before the men their rights on this matter, and the conductors of that journal were accused of disloyalty, and all sorts of attacks were made upon them in the London press. Surely the representatives of the Irish people in this House are within their rights in following these poor Militiamen to Sheffield or Dover, and giving them the protection which the law provides, just as they would have done in Ireland. I understand that the North Cork Militia, now stationed at Dover, is under orders to go to South Africa on the 21st inst. From statements in the press and letters from the men themselves we are told that the men had no knowledge whatever of the intention to send them abroad, and that if the question was put to them as to whether they would volunteer for foreign service they either did not hear it or did not understand it. Well, if that be true, I say it is monstrous. I do not profess to have a knowledge of military law, but I have consulted the authorities on the subject. The official "Manual of Military Law," issued by the War Office, at page 812 says that the Militia cannot be taken out of the home
272
district without the voluntary offer of such Militia; and every Militiaman must have the fact that his offer must be entirely voluntary explained to him by the commanding officer previous to any acceptance of such offer by the Sovereign. Here are the precise words of the Act—
"A commanding officer shall not certify any voluntary otter previously to his having explained to every person offering so to serve that the offer is a purely voluntary one on his part."
Now I want to know, did every commanding officer in every Irish Militia regiment in England comply with that law? If he did not, surely the word "kidnapping" could alone properly describe not only their being taken out of England, but out of their own country. Another authority, Gunter's "Outlines of Military Law," says—"The main principle of the English recruiting system is voluntary enlistment." Then the author goes on to show that no pressure is to be exercised to enlist recruits, and that "recruiters are forbidden to offer any inducements beyond those set forth in the pamphlet officially issued by the War Office." Further, "The recruiter gives to every man who offers to enlist a notice form setting forth the conditions of enlistment and particulars of attestation or swearing in before a justice, and time and place of this." Now, I want to know was that notice served on each man of the regiment I have mentioned? If not, I say not only is the act an illegal one, but that these men would be justified—and I would take the responsibility in advising them to do so—in resisting by force any attempt to get them out of the country to take part in a war which they abhor in their hearts. I will read a letter from one of the 3rd Royal Munster Fusiliers now stationed at Dover, addressed to my hon. friend the Member for Waterford—
"As an Irishman I beg of you to take immediate steps to help me, and many others beside me. We have the name of having volunteered for the front. Now, dear Sir, me, and many others beside me, were not on parade the day we are supposed to have volunteered. I went to the orderly-room to explain my case, and the sergeant major hunted me away. We are told here that the majority of the regiment takes us all out; that means that if the majority of the regiment volunteered the rest are compelled to go. Now, dear Sir, I am not a Reserve man, nor a special-service man, and I must go, but I want

273
you to come to my help, for I did not volunteer. Hoping, dear Sir, that you will take some steps in the matter immediately, as the regiment leaves on the 21st of this month."
That is a letter of a simple man telling a tale in his own way. Perhaps the Under Secretary for War will kindly tell us what was the plan adopted in getting these men to volunteer. My information is that in more than one case the regiment was paraded and the colonel did not ask the question, "If any man wants to go to the front let him step out." On the contrary, he said, "Those who do not wish to go to the front step out." That was done not only in England but at the barracks of Temple-more. Well, we all know what the pride of a soldier, and especially that of an Irish soldier, is; and if such a question as that were asked he would feel shy of stepping out, in case he should be sneered at by his comrades. Moreover, he does not know his rights. If the authorities which I have quoted are right each man should get a separate notice informing him that it is open to him to go or not as he pleases, and that he should have three months to determine. I will read the authority—
"On appearing before a magistrate or justice of the peace, the latter must see that the man is sober and understands what he is doing. He is asked if he consents to Ids enlistment; but he may reconsider his decision without paying any tine. If a recruit objects to his attestation, on the grounds of error, etc., within three months, his claim must be investigated at once."
I say that if proper inquiry were made it would be found that very few of the men of the North Cork Militia who were induced to volunteer to go out to South Africa were sober at the time, because care was taken by the petty officers to ply them with drink from money which had been put into their hands, so that the men would not know what they were doing. I commend that information to the hon. Member for South Belfast, who has a horror of whisky, even when diluted with 30 per cent, of water. Now, how are those men, who are at present at Dover, but have to go on board ship on the 21st inst., to have a chance of deciding within three months whether they will go out to South Africa or not? I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War will tell us how many men in the regiment I have mentioned have really, in compliance with the law, volunteered for this war.
MR. GRANT LAWSON (): From the point of view of a mere civilian who wants value for his money in the matter of expenditure, I will not make any destructive criticism of the proposals submitted by the Government, but I will venture to make one or two suggestions as to how the evils that I complain of may be possibly remedied. The force of which I wish to speak is the Militia, of which there is a great camp in my constituency, and of which I hear much. There is a sum of £250,000 set down in the Estimate for the Militia. That appears to me to be either too large or too small—too large if the Militia is allowed to remain as at present, and too small if that force is to be put into a state of efficiency. I know it is only meant to cover the period to the end of the year, but I also know that a considerable expenditure will require to be made to put it in a state of efficiency. The Militia is a very old force. The preamble of the Militia Ballot Act of 1802 says—
"Whereas a respectable military force under the command of officers possessing property within Great Britain is essential to the constitution …. and the Militia, as by law established, through its constant readiness on short notice for effectual service, has been found of the utmost importance for the internal defence of this realm."
What is the state at the present moment of the Militia? I am not exaggerating when I say that it is grossly under its strength, that it is inefficiently trained, and that it greatly lacks officers, especially non-commissioned officers. I do not say that the officers and men would not try to do their best. I am sure that they are quite willing to go out and fight our battles, but there arc not enough of them. It is said that the only way to remedy that is to put into force the Militia Ballot Act. Now, I have tried to make out what the exact condition of the Militia Ballot is. The foundation of it is the Act of 1802, which consists of no fewer than 178 clauses. It has been amended by three different Acts of very considerable length in 1815, 1852, and 1860: and it is perfectly obvious to me that it could not be put in force by Royal Pro clamation. It is also said that the Militia could be brought up to its proper strength by paying it better: but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would ask, "Where is the money to come from?" I say it

275
might come from those who do not serve their country in the ranks of the Army, I am one of those who could not so serve, and would make no objection on that score to pay. If that were done, it would have a double effect: it would bring the Militia up to its strength, and enable the Government to demand from the Volunteers, who would also be exempt from the tax, a greater efficiency. As to the Militia being insufficiently trained, the Secretary of State for War might remedy that, for he has the power now to require from every recruit that he should be trained as a recruit for six months. But that power is not at present exercised. All that the recruit is required to do now is to undergo forty-nine days drill, with no musketry exercise in the first year, and twenty-eight days drill, preceded by fourteen days musketry instruction, in the second year—that is, just about three months training in two years; whereas the Secretary of State for War might exact seven months training in the two years. The main point I wish to call attention to is the deterioration in the non-commissioned ranks of the Militia regiments at this moment. There are two classes of sergeants in the Militia—those on the permanent staff' and the Volunteer non-commissioned officers. Now, the number of the permanent staff sergeants is very often not up to the establishment; strength, and when they are thoroughly established you take them away in order to drill the details of the Line battalions. The Militia officers are the best men in the regiment, and you draft them into the Line to such an extent that the unfortunate colonel of a Militia regiment in times like this is left with hardly any non-commissioned officers at all. I think there are many old soldiers in the country who would return to drill the Militia if inducement was offered to them in the shape of benefit, and also if they were able to serve for pension on their return. There are a great many places in the marine store houses now held by men in their first terms of service, and ail the work could be done by these men when they ceased to train Militia recruits.
MR. T. D. SULLIVAN ()rose to protest against the Vote. He characterised the war as unnecessary and unjust, and the speeches made in its defence as both unreal and insincere. The
276
real motive for the war was easily apparent to anyone who studied the map. The two Republics lay like an egg in the midst of British possessions, and when the egg was found to be a golden one the temptation to the British' people to seize it was irresistible. In public schools it was always considered a mean and paltry act for a big boy to beat a little one, but here was a nation with 40,000,000 of people embarking on a war with one of 200,000, and using all the might and resources of its empire to crush and subdue a noble, patriotic, and brave peasantry. Whatever the result of the war might be, the civilised world would condemn the action of Great Britain, while the Boers had won for themselves immortal honour.
MR. BILL (): There is no doubt that before this war commenced the Militia was very much under its strength; but for many months recruiting has been exceedingly active, and I think the mere fact that thirty battalions-are either in South Africa or on their way or under orders goes to show, at any rate, that there are a great number of Militia battalions fully up to strength and able to carry themselves bravely along with the Line in South Africa. Besides those there are six others doing service in the Mediterranean, and others, among which: is my own battalion, are doing service: elsewhere. With regard to the Militia in Ireland being invited to volunteer for I foreign service, I would just like to say that my regiment, now at Newry, was called together and the captains of each company had to find out from the men, individually, whether they would be willing to serve in South Africa. Five hundred and seventy men expressed their willingness to go abroad, and 111 men said that they were not willing, some of whom afterwards retracted their refusal. The: rest will, of course, be left at home. If the numbers of the Militia are below par from time to time it is to a great extent due to the recruiting for the Line. I recollect the Under Secretary of State for War telling us last year that the number of Militia recruits in 1898 was 40,000, and that of that number no less than 15,000 passed on into the Line. I see with pleasure that the Militia has, almost for the first time in its existence, received honourable recognition from the War Office authorities. This is a great and

277
important fact. The Militia only asked for a fair field and no favour. They do not want to be patted on the back and told that they are fine fellows merely because they are ready to do their duty. We of the Militia are perfectly satisfied that we have a most important place among the armed forces of the country, and I most warmly support the War Office in their efforts to make the transport service more efficient. One word more I have to say in regard to the appeal given by the First Lord as to increasing the supplies of men. There is one class of man who has hitherto been neglected by the War Office; I refer to the man who has served his twelve years, five years with the colours and seven years in the Reserve, and who is then absorbed into the civilian ranks. They are the most valuable men that the War Office could possibly get hold of, and they ought never to be allowed to disappear as they do into private life. They are discharged at a time when they are most fit for military service, many of them being no more than thirty or thirty-one years of ago; they are men knowing their work, and who, if they could only be given a small bounty, might be held over and brought into the reserve force of the country for six or seven years further service. I do earnestly appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War that he will take great care that this very valuable class of man is not overlooked in the future.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (): I do not desire to take any prolonged part in this debate; but I must call attention to what has taken place this evening in one of those conjunctions between the two front benches which I think are always sinister and always portend some disadvantage of the first magnitude to the public interest in regard to the War Office and Army matters. The War Office and the Under Secretary of State for War once more find themselves in agreement over this matter: but I have never found any particular advantage resulting from an agreement between the two front benches. Hitherto it has generally been the presumption that when the two front benches agree they are right. I hope in the future we shall reverse that presumption. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War spoke of 184,000 men
278
going from this country to South Africa. I am sure that was a more slip, because it is absolutely alien to the facts of the case; but slips of that kind are important when made by men of the rank of an ex-Cabinet Minister. I want to point out that so far from that statement being true, the whole number of Regular troops which have gone from this country is something like 85,000. Why I attach importance to this is because I see-plainly that the line of defence to be taken up by the War Office is that we-have had a stupendous call made upon us by this war, which would never have been made under other circumstances, and which could not have been contemplated in the past. That is not correct. We have sent 85,000 Regular troops from this country, and our whole Regular resources are absolutely gone. We have stripped the Colonies, we have stripped India and the Mediterranean. Every man beyond that is an emergency man, created for a purpose never contemplated in any War Office organisation. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that we ought to have contemplated this drain upon our Army. His whole speech points to that. He said that the great responsibilities we had undertaken would always lead to there being made larger and still larger demands upon our troops. But so far from it being true that 85,000 men is an exceptional demand, the very next time we go to war with any Great Power we shall have a demand for 20,000 men to garrison India, and instead of our being able to take men from the Mediterranean and elsewhere we shall have to reinforce those garrisons. I attach great importance to these facts, and if we do not look ahead and prepare for such contingencies now, we may say farewell to reforming them in the future. I should like to remind the House of what is the complaint we make. We have been told to-night that it will be hard to get men in the future, and hon. Members have been asked for suggestions. I do not believe in the sincerity of that request. I rather resent it, as everybody knows that this is an emergency measure hurried through as soon as it can be, in order to get whatever advantage we can out of it. Well, we have taken 85,000 men out of our Army. I should like to ask—is there any sane person who regards with satis-

279
faction the fact that 85,000 men should be the product of 185,000? We have 109,000 men at home, and not one single organised unit of that number can be used. There is no army in the world organised on such a basis that it requires 109,000 ineffectives to produce 85,000 effectives. I suggest that our arrangements should be so altered that the 185,000 can be utilised in a more generous proportion than this. We are told that we want to spend more money. Why is it that this thing is so expensive? Why is it that we are squandering money like water? It is because of the tremendous waste of the system. For every 2½ men—if I may use the expression—whom we enlist in the Army, only one single man goes into the Reserve. We are squandering twice the whole enlisted force of the Army. We have heard that 40,000 men were enlisted last year. How many will go out into the Reserve? Something like 14,000 men. I would suggest that before the Under Secretary comes down and asks for twelve more battalions, which he won't get, he should apply himself to the problem of how to stop this terrific waste, which deprives the Army of such an enormous number of young soldiers. Well, I do not like to submit tamely to the proposition adopted by the two front benches this evening. This is an exaggerated demand which is absolutely certain to occur again, and at a time when probably we shall not be able to meet the emergency with the men which we have had at our disposal on the present occasion in India and the Mediterranean. I think my hon. friend was misinformed when he told the Committee that only four battalions have been withdrawn from the Mediterranean and dispatched to South Africa. I believe it is nearly double that number.
MR. WYNDHAM: When I made that statement I was dealing with the original call. As a matter of fact 10,000 men have been withdrawn from the Mediterranean.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am very glad my hon. friend has taken the opportunity of correcting a misapprehension that I know for n fact had been caused by his original statement. The figures show that the men taken from the Mediterranean are very far from being the whole of the Mediterranean gar-
280
rison. But I desire to record my protest now as to the scheme itself. We must take it for what it is worth. I believe that the one solid feature about it is the creation of the new batteries of artillery. I noticed that the Secretary of State for War only the other day said that it had "struck" the War Office that they were lamentably deficient in a large number of stores.*
That is an expression quite worthy of Micawber, and it ought surely to be put on record. I have been struck by the fact myself, and a great many other people whom I have come across have been struck by it. We have a right to protest against what is almost an impertinence, coming as it does from a highly paid and very responsible officer of the Crown, the Secretary of State for War. He comes down to the House, and without one word of remonstrance says it has "struck" him now, in the emergency we are placed in, that we are largely deficient in a number of stores. Well, what are we to do? Whom are we to trust? Whose business in the whole wide world is it to know a thing-like this if not that of the Secretary of State for War? Whom are we to employ if the Secretary of State for War cannot find out a thing like this till the emergency is upon us? Why is it that we are now buying guns from Japan? Why are our men working night and day at Woolwich in the making of small arms and some 13,000 rounds of ammunition? Why is it that the great resources of this country are strained to the last fibre in order to make ourselves equal to this not very amazing occasion? I do resent the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury in his appeal to us for suggestions by way of assisting the War Office, who have got us into this hole. At present it is their business to get us out of it. We are ready to support them through thick and thin, but I think the expression used by the Secretary of State for War is a little beyond what is permissible in a great Government department; in short, it is a mockery to ask us to make suggestions in an emergency like this.
MR. FLYNN ()pressed for information as to what he described as the shady and uncandid manner in which the North Cork Militia had been treated,
*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. lxxviii., p. 1181.

281
and the reflection which had been cast upon the courage of the men. He also commented on the large amount of £46,000,000 asked for in the expenditure on military preparations, and this at a time which, except for the present war, might be described as one of comparative peace. How much of this expenditure was to be considered temporary, and how much might be looked upon as permanent? The hon. Member was complaining of the association of officers with co-operative supply societies, when—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to make the same speech to-night that he made on Tuesday. I recognise a great part of what he has said as having been said on Tuesday.
MR. FLYNNsaid he only wished to add that this was not merely a question of gigantic expenditure of money and a terrible and mournful loss of gallant lives. It was a question of principle, and historians would hold the Government responsible for not foreseeing the contingencies of this unjust and unnecessary war.
MR. YERBURGH (): The language used by certain hon. Members reminds me of similar utterances made during the Peninsular War, when people thought it was incumbent on the country to retire from the Peninsula as soon as possible, just as certain people are now clamouring for the retirement of the British from South Africa. I cannot but deprecate the speeches of some leaders of public opinion who pander to popular excitement and popular nervousness in times like the present, and blink the true facts of the case. The true position is that we have had to meet an enemy in his own country, a superior mobile force to our own, and entrenched behind strong natural fortifications. It is vain under such conditions to say that we should have commanded success from the very commencement of the campaign. It appeal's to me that we have done everything with the means at our disposal that could possibly have been expected. I would remind the House that a large proportion of the 200,000 men we shall shortly have in Africa will not all be available for fighting and pushing the war into the enemy's country. A large proportion of these men
282
will be necessarily employed in guarding the line of communications, and thus the Boers are numerically superior to our troops, and have the advantage of attacking us at points of their own choosing and from practically invulnerable natural fortresses. I think it would be wise to recognise that our troops are still not numerous enough, and that though Lord Roberts has so far succeeded in his enterprise that the brilliant march of General French has put him in touch with the Kimberley garrison, still one success like that does not finish a campaign. Large demands will still be made upon us, and, I think there is a good deal in the argument that another 50,000 men will be required to accomplish the task we have set ourselves in South Africa. That will not be a counsel of perfection, but a counsel of common sense; for the more men we have the sooner must be the victory, the shorter the campaign, and therefore the greater economy in blood and treasure. On the question of conscription I think a great deal of misconception exists. Conscription means taking men against their will, and using them for military service either at the Cape, in India, or the Soudan. It is a different thing, however, inviting men to undergo a certain amount of training in the use of the rifle. This becomes obligatory on every citizen who has the welfare and security of his country at heart. I would go further than that and say it would be a good thing for the men themselves, because at the present time the working classes of this country have no occupation whatever for their weekly half-holidays other than looking at a football match or something of that sort. They do nothing themselves, but I suggest they should be given a little drill and taught the use of the rifle. If I am told that that would be doing no good to the military resources of this country, my answer is that whenever you are engaged in a big struggle you will have no go behind your Regular Army and ask for-Volunteers. It therefore stands to reason that a large body of men familiar with the use of the rifle would be far better material and much sooner organised and far more fit to put in the field against whatever enemy you were engaged with than a. force not so trained. There is one other point, namely, the question of commissions being given to our colonies. Such a. proposal is peculiarly

283
appropriate, seeing the excellent services: the colonies have rendered in connection with this war. I was particularly struck by a statement in a letter in The Times the other day to the effect that in one action when the Yorkshire Regiment lost their officers, and for the moment wavered, it was a captain of the New Zealand contingent who put himself at the head of the troops and called upon them to charge. The men followed him and took i the position. With regard to the Volunteers, I understand that the matters which most interest them are the question of ranges and the question of expenses. I was told the other day at a dinner given to the men who were leaving for the front that they did not like to feel that, owing to the officers having to pay, out of their own pockets, there was a flavour of charity about die system. I understand from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the Government are prepared to remedy that. There is one other point, and that is the question of mounted infantry. There are a large body of men in this country win for various reasons do not care for either the Yeomanry or the Volunteers, but who would be quite prepared to enter a corps of mounted infantry, provided you did mot make the conditions of service too hard and they were not away from their homes for too great a length of time. With regard to the question of mounting these men might I make a suggestion? At the present time certain money prizes are given to encourage the breeding of horses in this country. I would suggest that included in the class of horses for which prizes are given should be pony sires as well as thoroughbred sires. In that way I think you would improve the breed of pony required for the mounted infantry. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that you: have great difficulty in procuring recruits for the Army because you have to compete with a high labour market. There is an answer to that in the fact that in the past the Army has stunk in the nostrils of the people. In Lancashire it has been looked upon as a disgrace for any member of a family to join the ranks of the Army. If a youth enlisted he was looked upon as being certain to go to perdition, and efforts would be made to buy him out. It is quite obvious that that feeling is now passing away. The interest taken in the Army on all sides shows
284
that it will be regarded as an honourable profession, and behind that you will have a great force, and one you cannot afford to despise, namely, the opinion of the women of this country. Provided the soldier has fair and liberal treatment, has ample opportunities given him in after life, is looked after when wounded, and his family cared for if he is killed, you will not have the difficulty in filling the ranks that is anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman. I thank the Government generally for the desire they have shown to meet the present situation. The only thing I would ask them is to consider whether it is not within the bounds of their policy to send more men to South Africa, not in any spirit of panic, but simply on the principle that the more men you have there the sooner the campaign will be over, the more complete will be your victory, and the more economical the result both in blood and in money.
MR. J. P. FARRELL (): I rise for the purpose of taking part in this debate from a totally opposite point of view from that of the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee. Like the hon. and learned. Gentleman the Member for North Louth, I have no Imperial soul, and therefore I cannot enter with any sympathetic spirit into the somewhat discursive discussion which has taken place on this question of giving the Government power to raise 120,000 men and to collect £13,000,000 from the taxpayers. We Irish Members have a right to approach this question from a more local point of view. My sympathy has to a very considerable extent gone out to the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote, while listening to the multitudinous suggestions which have been flung at his head by gentlemen interested in the Imperial side of the question. For my part I feel that the hon. Gentleman has discharged his duty fairly enough in endeavouring to meet the points raised. He has done all that is needful as a representative of the Government to enlighten the various Members who have contributed to the debate, but I am afraid he will have much greater difficulty in satisfying the different wants of the different gentlemen who require amendments of the proposals as regards Volunteers, Militia, Line men, and the other branches of the service which are now to be brought up to full strength if possible. I desire

285
to associate myself entirely with everything which has fallen from hon. Members on these benches in opposition to this Vote. I am probably prohibited from entering on the side of the question dealt with by the Votes taken last night, but had I been fortunate enough to catch the Chairman's eye I would, from our point of view, have presented a case against Irishmen, at all events, being supposed to be anxious and willing to fight your battles. I also understand from a ruling given earlier this evening, that I am prohibited more or less from dealing with the financial aspect of the case as it affects Ireland. My contention would have been that we as Irishmen are interested in this Vote of £13,000,000 to the extent of at least £1,200,000. As, however, I should be out of order in pursuing that subject, I will pass to another branch of the question. This Vote of £13,000,000 is but one of a series of Votes. You have already obtained £10,000,000 in October last, and this £13,000,000 will make a sum expended so far of £23,000,000. But no one contends for a moment that this enormous sum will meet the emergencies of the case. I am informed on reliable authority that you are conducting this war at a cost of £2,000,000 per week. It may be more, but, at any rate, it may be taken for granted that these sums on account represent only a very small portion of the total sum that will be required before this unjust and ill-advised war is brought to a conclusion. The Vote here is divided into thirteen items, some of which I am not in a position to criticise, but upon others of which I desire to make a few remarks from the Irish point of view. On the Vote for "Medical Establishments, Pay, etc.," you have set down a sum of £70,000. How much of that £70,000 have Irish medical practitioners been given the opportunity of earning? I understand that a number of highly qualified and very eminent gentlemen in the medical profession in Dublin tendered their services at the outbreak of war, but only a very few favoured ones succeeded in securing appointments from the Government. We also want to know something as regards the pay of the Militia under Item 3, for which you ask £250,000. I entirely associate myself with the condemnation from these benches of the kidnapping, as it has been
286
properly termed, of Irish Militiamen in connection with this war. The action of the authorities in regard to the North Cork Militia, one of the first Militia regiments supposed to have volunteered, is open to the gravest suspicion and objection. A great number of the men were practically ignorant of the question put to them, and it was not until they were entrained and the doors locked that they knew they had started for the war in South Africa. That was not the action of an honourable Government; it was taking advantage of these poor men's ignorance in a way which is open to the gravest criticism and censure. Only yesterday in the Irish daily papers there was a letter from Cardinal Logue calling attention to a case of equal gravity in connection with the Monaghan Militia. In this case a man named Duffy, on appealing to his Eminence for spiritual ministrations, informed him that when he enlisted in this Militia regiment he had no intention of being called out on active service, and he asked his Eminence to endeavour to obtain for him such legal rights as he was entitled to. There is also the case of the Louth Militia, who, although you have them over here in England, were paraded under circumstances similar to those of the Cork Militia, and wore not treated properly in the matter of volunteering. On that ground alone, if on no other, we should have the right to criticise in the strongest manner the action of the Government and to press for such explanation as will allay the anxiety which is felt in Ireland on this subject. What are the facts? How do you treat these Militiamen? You take a man away from his family. That unfortunate man would probably be a day labourer, whose labour was of the utmost importance to his family. But what have the Government done? Whilst taking away the main prop and support of the family they have given the family nothing, but have left them dependent upon the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association or other similiar institutions. I pass over the Vote for "Yeomanry cavalry," although a number of well-known gentlemen—who in the near future, provided they are not shot by the Boers, may come back to get the reward of their services from a grateful Government—have volunteered in Ireland under a noble Lord who has some connection with the county in which I live. I come to Vote 5, in connection

287
with the Volunteer corps. Why should you ask Irishmen to take even the smallest part in providing your Volunteer corps in England with better munitions of war, better clothing, and better treatment altogether, when Ireland, which, according to your law, is an integral part of the British Empire, is deprived of the right of having any such thing as a Volunteer corps at all? So far from being allowed to do that, your resident magistrates have been specially instructed not to allow the most respectable farmers in the country to have or to carry a gun for the purpose of destroying vermin on their ownland. Something might be said from the point of view of years gone by, when things political were very hot in the country, and it may have been necessary to give your resident magistrates this power: but you first of all deprive the people of their Parliament, of their right to manage their own affairs, and then you deprive them of every liberty which a free people should enjoy. I contend that one of the first privileges of a free people is that of carrying arms for their own protection as well as for the advantage of knowing how to use them in case of necessity. After depriving the people of that privilege I say you have no right to come here and make them pay for the equipment and training of your Volunteers for the purpose of a war which we condemn as immoral and unjust. With regard to Vote 7, dealing with provisions, forage, and things of that kind, you ask for the very large sum of £3,000,000. Last session and the session before I put a number of questions to the Financial Secretary to the War Office with reference to this matter of forage. It came to my knowledge that instead of following the old rule which obtained in Ireland before the introduction of the short service system you have disposed of a great number of contracts not to Irish vendors, but to co-operative stores having their headquarters in Dublin or Cork or London, and the money charged in your account as part of your set-off against us was in reality paid into the coffers of these co-operative societies.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no charge whatever in this Vote for anything paid to any co-operative society,
288
nor does the Canteen Vote come into the question at all.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: It will come later on then, I suppose. It is put down here en bloc—£3,000,000 for "Provisions, Forage, Field Allowances, and other Services"; and, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, I am entitled to ask how much of this sum it is proposed to expend in our country. In regard to Vote 8 it will not be denied that there are in Ireland ample facilities for the expenditure in a wise and careful manner of a considerable amount of money. I would ask how much of the £500,000 for "Clothing Services" you propose expending at the Limerick Army Clothing Stores or in any other portion of the country. There are other items I might discuss were it not that I am anxious not to stand between other hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak and the Chair. I want now to express a view which perhaps will diverge somewhat from the views of my hon. friends in connection with the whole subject. I say this quite apart from any political aspect. If you have any cause to complain of your failure to enlist recruits in either the Regular Army, the Militia or the Volunteers, I say that primarily and essentially the fault for that state of things exists with the Government and with no other persons whatever. Why? Because after the men who enlist have given you the best years of their lives they are turned out on the street to become either loafers at the street corners or public mendicants or inmates of the Irish workhouses. I have repeatedly called the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to cases of the most lamentable neglect, which are nothing: short of glaring outrages on humanity, in which men joined your Army, went through your campaigns, lost their health, and were then left either with, such a totally inadequate pension that they could not support life at all, or, what is worse, without any pension, whatever. Such is your complicated system, and so impossible is it for any justice to be obtained in even the smallest matter, that beyond saying, "I will cause inquiry to be made," or, "I will have the case looked into," nothing whatever is done for these poor men. That is one of the things which is calcu-

289
lated to make your Army unpopular in Ireland, because these poor men, who give their lives and suffer, and lose their health in your service, have been cast aside as so much useless lumber, to be come chargeable to the rates, or die of hunger in the streets of your towns. I feel that the whole system under which you govern our country is radically wrong. You do not understand us—
THE CHAIRMAN: The question of Home Rule does not arise in this debate.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I was only going one word further to say this. I feel that so long as you treat us with distrust and suspicion; so long as you refuse to allow us to carry arms in our own country; so long as you refuse to give us the facilities which every other free country has to learn the use of arms, you have no right to complain of us and find fault if, when we find you in a difficulty, we refuse to come to your assistance. Apart from that there is the greater and the more practical question of the incidence of taxation. This is a war which you have undertaken against the will and the wishes of nine-tenths of the Irish people, and of their representatives in this House. You have ignored our advice on this subject, and while you have the power to compel us to contribute we are bound to resist you. Although we protest against this Vote you will compel us to pay our share, but you cannot compel us to refrain from expressing our sentiments and our protest against the injustice which you are enforcing upon us.
COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY (): The few remarks which I have to make will be directed to the question of the prosecution of the war now being carried on in South Africa. On this Vote I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for War two questions. I consider it of the utmost importance that in South Africa there should be a large quantity of rifle ammunition beyond what is required for use in action, so that all infintry should have constant practice. They have no made ranges, and no special targets. There is the open veldt for a range, and a soup-plate against the back of a stream or the side of a kopje for target; and for improvised moving targets, a barrel rolling down
290
a hill or floating down a stream is considered quite sufficient. All troops require constant practice. I have been lately engaged in assisting to raise a "sharpshooters corps." Even those who are first-class shots will require practice on the veldt. It is an admirable opportunity of training troops, and of giving practice under service conditions, which are the best, to large bodies of men upon whose efficiency with the rifle we may require to rely elsewhere than in South Africa. I wish to ask if there will be plenty of ammunition available for this. My second question is, as to the class of gun to be supplied to the thirty-six new batteries of field artillery. This I consider also a most vital subject. How it happened does not matter, but there is no doubt our field guns have been outclassed in the campaign in Natal. We have practically little difference between the organisation of horse artillery and field artillery. The rôle of horse artillery is with cavalry, and they must be fast moving; such necessity docs not exist with field artillery, which works with infantry. The only real reason for rapid movement of field artillery is that no time should be lost while guns are changing position. But I see every reason why some at least of our field artillery batteries should have far more powerful guns, moving not necessarily at a gallop, but guns which could be used as guns of temporary positions, and moved forwards or back to fresh positions as required. We are raising this large number of batteries, which means probably 216 field guns, exclusive of horse artillery guns, and I should be glad to hear that the military authorities are fully considering the subject of some of these batteries being organised as movable heavy batteries.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (): In the few observations I intend addressing to the Committee I shall not enter at all into the question of policy. That question has been amply discussed, and we on these benches have expressed our opinions, not alone by our voices, but by our votes, as to what we think of this war, and as to the unfortunate circumstances by which all the negotiations which have led up to it have been conducted. But we cannot remain here as representatives of Irish constituencies without letting this House know that we

291
are representing the views of Irishmen who sent us here to express our utter detestation at the continuance of this war, and to use every means within our power, few though we be in number, to use every rule and form of the House to prevent the continuance of this war and the passage of these resolutions, by which £13,000,000 are to be expended in the prosecution of the war, which is unjust in its inception, and has been carried out in a way which is hurtful not alone to the interests of this country, but detrimental to the interests of Ireland. Let me say at the outset that we have no interest whatever in the proposals made for the increase of your defensive army at home. We look upon all these proposals as being simply a step in the direction which the Imperial policy of the Government is plainly leading this country to, and which means that, if you are to carry out your Imperialistic ideas, as expressed and mainly exemplified and stated by the Colonial Secretary, will lead this country eventually to the militarism which prevails upon the Continent and which eventually will make the entire people of this country rise up when the proper time comes and hurl from power any Government who attempts to impose such a policy upon the country. We are told a good deal about the benefits which are to accrue to the Militia by the advantage of an increase of threepence a day for moss allowance. We are paying our toll at all events, in the Irish Militia regiments. We are paying our toll in blood for this iniquitous war. You have taken very good care on all occasions to place the Irish regiments in the front of your forces in every attack you have made upon the Boers. We are bearing our share in this war and spending Irish blood upon it in a far greater proportion than we are entitled to do. We are not ashamed of it, because if an Irishman, contrary to what we believe to be the wishes of the vast majority of his countrymen, enters the Army or Militia, we do not believe he will break his oath of allegiance. He will fight, as every Irishman has always done, with bravery in the ranks of your Army, but we say that you have placed us in an unfair and improper position. You have done more, for you have induced and persuaded Irish Militia regiments by what I will not attempt to characterise in this House—because no language I can use would be sufficiently
292
strong—by unfair means you have induced Irish Militia regiments and men to volunteer for active service upon this ground, that they were simply to hold garrisons in Gibraltar and Malta, and when you had so cajolled them and persuaded them you shipped them over to South Africa to the front, and behind these Irish regiments will be found Englishmen fighting under their guidance, and thereby you are saving the blood of your own troops in this matter. What do you do with the question of the raising of those Militia in Ireland? You do not leave them in Ireland for the purpose for which they were raised, but you send them over to this country, and you send the English Militia regiments to Ireland. Do you expect those Irish Militia will return to their country, after a sojourn with you, and be more agreeable to your Government when they return? On the contrary, I think they will go back to Ireland more determined than ever to help their country whenever the occasion arises to recover all her rights and her political independence, and all those privileges and liberties which Irishmen prize and intend to fight for until they prevail. I lament, I confess, as an Irishman, the unhappy position in which this country has found herself at the present time. Here we have this great Christian country of England, at this period of the Christian era: England, who has always boasted that she is a country which is to carry not her own civilising influence alone, but the benefits of Christianity all over the world, to be prosecuting a war against what I will pronounce one of the most Christian nations on the earth; and she has the absolute hypocrisy, after declaring in favour of this war, to pose before the world as the advocate of Christianity. I say that the greatest setback that has been given to the progress of Christianity in the world has been given by this unjust and cruel war which you are now waging against a fellow-Christian nation. What is the use of you appealing from your pulpits for money to spread the blessings of the Gospel to the heathen tribes, when you yourselves claim to be the custodians of the Word of the Almighty? You have proclaimed yourselves to be the greatest Christian nation of the world, and you are absolutely fighting with a country whose creed is more pure than your own; and this religion, forsooth, you propose to carry

293
to the benighted heathens with the Bible in one hand and the sword in the other. I think when the history of this war is written in future years, and when the historian commences the record of what I pronounce to be the commencement of the decadence of the British Empire, upon those pages will be written "Ichabod! thy glory is departed"; because you who have hitherto posed as the pioneers of freedom, who have rejoiced to say that in every country struggling for liberty their faces were turned towards England, you are now fighting not for the common rights of humanity, but for the simple, sordid advantage of a few stock-jobbers in the City, and for these you are trying to crush out and take away the liberty of these two Republics; and when your war is ended, as it must be ended, by success to your arms—because it goes without saying that if your power is five to one in South Africa you will be sure to succeed—when you come to deal with those Republics, and the Dutch in Africa, remember that you will not have an Ireland to deal with. We in Ireland are deprived of the rights of every free country—we are not allowed to carry arms to defend ourselves and maintain our rights; but when you come to deal with Africa and the Dutch you will not have that power. You may oppress them for a time, but the children of the fathers you are now slaying in this unholy war will rise against you again as armed men. I should fail to believe even in the Almighty if I did not believe that your unjust and cruel war must end eventually in disaster to you and in success to these men do not propose to trespass at greater length upon the time of the House to-night. It is idle for us to discuss these propositions of yours. If I were to attempt to criticise these proposals that you have made for increasing your Army, I might heap ridicule upon them as has been done by the "man in the street" in London to-day. When you talk about your Volunteer forces going for a month under canvas, and your Volunteer artillery going three months under canvas, you are laughed at by every Volunteer in London, because everybody knows that there is not an employer in England that would consent to his employees going away for one month and leaving his work. These proposals of yours are ridiculed by everyone; and, if that be so, I want to know what;
294
have we got to do with this question? As far as Ireland is concerned, we have not a single Volunteer, for you never propose to give us any. I suppose the Member for South Belfast will tell us that we are all rebels, and therefore we cannot have those arms. That may be so, but I am not ashamed in this House to be called an Irish rebel. If we Irishmen had the government of our own country we would not come begging to you in this House for the restoration of our rights which you have filched from us, but as you have the power you keep us in that position. But the time will come, whether in our days or in the days of those who follow us, when you will regret that you have not made peace with your Irish brethren, and made Ireland one part of your Empire, when we would willingly have united with you in pushing forward all those reforms which are common to us all. As an Irish representative I should be wanting in my duty to my constituency and averse to every feeling in my heart if I had not expressed myself as I have done in regard to this iniquitous and unjust war.
MR. TULLY (): My hon. friends on these benches have spoken in opposition to the Vote for this war. It has been stated here by Irish Members who have spoken—and you, Mr. Lowther, have ruled them out of order, and I do not want to be called to order for repeating it—that the taxation of Ireland for this war is out of proportion, to the incidence of the taxation in this country. That being so, we shall have to pay more in proportion to our resourees than Englishmen; and, therefore, I think we have all the more reason as Irishmen to object not only to this expenditure, but to also object to the mistakes and blunders which hon. Gentlemen representing Her Majesty's Government are making in prolonging this war or making it one of greater difficulty. The more blunders you make in carrying out this war the greater will be the expense, and the greater will be the tax which will fall upon Ireland. It is to that aspect of the question that I wish to direct the few remarks which I intend to make this evening. I think that the action of Ministers on the opposite bench within the last day or two has been such that, instead of bringing this war to a speedy

295
termination, it will probably have the effect of making the war very much more destructive and ferocious. We were told yesterday—the hint was given by the Secretary for the Colonies, and repeated by the Leader of this House—that in this war in South Africa you intended, under certain conditions, to use the natives and allow them to defend their rights. As far as my reading goes of the literature of this war, I have seen it stated in the papers that the Dutch population in Africa, especially in Cape Colony, have a great horror of the arming of the natives in South Africa. It was stated early in the war that if there was any proposal made from the English side to arm the natives that would be the one match which would light the powder magazine, and probably bring about an explosion and rebellion among the Cape Dutch. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, yesterday, will be read by the Dutch in Cape Colony as an indication that the Government intend to resort to this extreme measure of arming the natives in this way. That is just like some of the other statements made by the right hon. Gentlemen composing Her Majesty's Government which led to this unhappy war. It was a statement made by the Secretary for the Colonies which was largely responsible for bringing about the present state of things, and we have a right to protest against having to pay more than our share, and against the statement made that you intend to arm the natives and use them in this war.
THE CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be raised in this debate.
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No such statement was ever made.
MR. TULLY: Passing from that there is another objection to this Vote. You are going to hand this £13,000,000 to a department which we have heard criticised very strongly in this House. You are going to hand it over to be expended by the War Office. I object to the expenditure of this money by the department which has been so much criticised in this House, and in the newspapers. I have read a speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, which is reported in Hansard, in which he describes the War Office as "the epitome of centralisation gone mad." I am surprised that he does not use similar
296
language now about that department. You are handing over this £13,000,000 to be expended by the War Office, and if we look up during the progress of this war the conduct of that Department, we find that there has been one continual series of blunders and mistakes. It looks very strange before the world that these two Republics, composed of pastoral people and farmers, are able to beat you, who boast that you are the best manufacturing country in the world,, in the matter of munitions and armaments. It reflects very much on Great Britain that, in a struggle like this, two Republics in this far away corner of South Africa I are able to get better guns and rifles than can be put into the hands of the soldiers who are sent from this country. Why is it that this state of things has come about? I find when I read the criticisms and statements in the press, and listen to speeches in this House, that it is duo to the incompetence and bungling of the War Office. That is one of the reasons why I object to this Vote being handed over to the same Department where the public money has been wasted in the past. In the descriptions of the battles at Colenso and Magersfontein, where your troops have suffered reverses, all the correspondents have laid stress upon the fact that the Maxim-Vickers gun which the Boers had was a terrible gun, which spread consternation and destruction amongst your troops wherever it was used. And you send out your own troops without similar guns to face it. The statement has been made here that in 1892 the patent of that very gun was offered to the British War Office, and because of the influences that regulate matters there they refused that gun, and allowed it to fall into the hands of President Kruger and the Boers. The result of that blunder alone is that; hundreds of lives—more especially the lives of Irishmen—have been lost because the Boers have been better equipped and better armed, and provided with better material than have been placed in the hands of the soldiers sent out from this country. I have read descriptions by correspondents who have described, this gun as the "pom-pom" gun. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why you allowed the patents, for these guns to be acquired by foreign Powers. Then, again, there is the question of the Creusot guns. It has been stated by your own generals that your

297
guns were outranged by the Creusot guns in the hands of the Boers, and that that was the reason of some of the defeats which attended your operations. It was the shelling of the Creusot guns that made Dundee untenable, and caused General Yule to retreat to Lady smith. At the battle of Modderspruit the British guns were also outranged by the Boer artillery, and it was only yesterday I read that the British troops were driven from their position in Coles Kop by one of the Creusot guns. That shows the bungling and inefficiency of the War Oriice to whom we are now asked to hand over thirteen millions. It was stated in the Daily Mail at the opening of the war, when it was thought that no armaments could be imported into the Transvaal, that the Boers had eighty Creusot guns on order, and that they were ready for delivery when the war broke out. These guns were on offer at the Creusot works in France, and I believe a private individual offered to buy them and sell them again to the British War Office, and yet on account of the influence prevailing at the War Office the guns were not bought, with the result that you have been trying to cobble with naval guns in order to meet the Boer artillery, which has absolutely outclassed your own. Now I come to another matter which I think is one of the most serious connected with the war, and that is the question of powder. I served on a Committee upstairs, and I happen to have some experience of one of the gentlemen mixed up in this matter. We know it is stated that the inventor of cordite is Sir Frederick Abel. I have here a report of the debate which took place on this subject in 1893 in this House, when right hon. Gentlemen now in power were in opposition, and in that debate the present Secretary of the Treasury made a remarkable speech on what he called the "Cordite scandal." He said, "The result was that we had got a bad smokeless powder." It was stated then that when the War Office were anxious to get a smokeless powder—which had been in use on the Continent for years—they advertised for tenders and appoint d a committee of experts to inquire into them. That committee, consisting of Professors Abel, Dewar, and Dupre, received tenders from seventeen or eighteen inventors, and rejected them all, and at the end of six months Sir Frederick Abel came forward as the
298
inventor of cordite. The objection to the specification sent in by one of the inventors—Mr. Maxim—was that it contained nitroglycerine, but cordite contains more nitro-glycerine than any other explosive used in war. Dealing with this question, if Sir Frederick Abel—
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I am unable to see what that question has to do with this Vote.
MR. TULLY: I find in this Vote £1,600,000 for warlike and other stores, and I oppose it because of the policy pursued by the War Office with reference to this matter. The question was discussed by hon. Gentlemen who have since been made members of the Government, probably to prevent them repeating the arguments they had used when on this side of the House. In the debate of 1893 the present Secretary to the Treasury, speaking of Sir Frederick Abel having picked the brains of foreign inventors in order to pretend that he had invented cordite, which he passed oft' on the British nation as an excellent powder, said that if Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar had not the authority of the War Office for selling these secrets to foreign Powers they came within the Official Secrets Act, and ought to be prosecuted. Sir Frederick Abel had taken out patents for gun cotton—
THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing whatever to do with the present Vote. The powder may have been good or bad, but the part Sir Frederick Abel or others took in inventing it has no connection with this Vote.
MR. TULLY: I fail to appreciate the distinction. We are now asked to vote £1,600,000 for warlike and other stores, and it was on the Army Estimates that the debate of 1893 was raised. Are we not now to be allowed to debate the case?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is allowed to debate it, but I do not think he is entitled to go into matters seven years old in order to criticise the part taken by Sir Frederick Abel or others in inventing a certain powder.
MR. TULLY: But that is the very powder which has led to the disasters in South Africa. "The Cordite Scandal" was discussed in the Pull Mall Gazette and The Times, and it was stated then that the first time England got into a war with a Power armed with modern weapons

299
she would find that the powder she had was inferior. That is what has happened, and the reports sent home from the front state that the British rifles would not carry within 800 yards of the rifles used by the Boers, and that the British artillery was also outranged. That was caused by bad smokeless powder, and I was trying to trace how it was imposed on the country, and I find it was done by offcials of the War Office—the very department which is now asking us for thirteen millions to waste and squander in the same way. That is one of my objections to this Vote. You will find still existing the same spirit, the same influence, and the same desire to make money out of the British nation—and incidentally out of the Irish taxpayer—that have caused the War Office to reject excellent weapons, such as the Maxim-Vickers, and the Creusot guns, while Sir Frederick Abel is making thousands of pounds out of the powder he claims to have invented. The War Office also allowed Professor Anderson to be a member of a company supplying them with material, and when he was asked to give up his connection with the company he simply transferred his shares to his wife and son. These are the kind of transactions which have prevented you from getting the best weapons and ammunition for this war. You are now sending out poor Irish soldiers with rifles which will not carry within 800 yards of the Boer rifles, and without the protection of artillery when engaged in these mad and blundering frontal attacks, No other country in the world would hare submitted to the generalship shown in this war. In any other country General Buller would have been cashiered after Colenso, and Lord Methuen would have been placed against a wall. [An HON. MEMBER: And shot.] To vote thirteen millions to a Department managed in this manner—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member: has already referred to that matter two or three times. I must call his attention to the Standing Order which forbids repetition.
MR. TULLY: I thought perhaps the Financial Secretary to the War Office might explain.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Secretary to the War Office cannot reply while the hon. Member is in possession.
MR. TULLY: I am anxious to get further details with reference to the question of the Creusot guns.
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I can give an answer at once. There is not a particle of truth in the statement of the hon. Member.
MR. TULLY: That is very rough on. the Daily Mail, whose statements you took as gospel when you were promoting this war, although you are inclined to attach less importance to them now. Then, as to lyddite, we were told in the early part of the war that lyddite was such a terrible explosive that it would exterminate "acres of Boers"—that was the extraordinary expression used. It was also said that General Joubert protested against its use to Sir George White. We now find that lyddite was not exactly the success it was expected to be. I read the other day that the garrison of Lady smith—and; many of us would rather Ladysmith had been relieved than Kimberley on account of one gentleman who is in Kimberley—that the garrison watched the explosion off these lyddite shells and saw a black smoke. I asked an authority on the subject, should there have been a black smoke after explosion, and he said "No," and that it proved the shells were useless. The Government came into office on cordite: they may possibly go out on lyddite.
MR. HAYDEN (): I do not think I would discharge my duty to my constituents, who are keenly and bitterly opposed to this war, if I did not join my colleagues in entering my protest against this Vote. We are opposed to the war because we think it is unjust, unnecessary, and criminal, and therefore we would oppose the vote of a single-pound as much as the £13,000,000. We means to use the forms of the House, so far as in our power, to oppose every Vote that may be brought forward for the prosecution of the struggle against the' Boers, in which they are fighting the cause of liberty. They, like us Irishmen, are fighting against a Power which seeks to expand its territory at the expense of a small but brave and gallant race. Now, in addition to our having our feelings of opposition strengthened by the fact that the war is against the freedom of a brave and gallant race, we have also a deep financial interest in this question. Already a very large sum has been voted for the prosecution of this war. In October last

301
we were told from the Government benches that strong hopes were entertained that the ten millions then voted would be sufficient to bring the war to a conclusion. Now we find the same Government officials asking a further sum of thirteen millions, not for the purpose of bringing the war to a con-elusion, because there is no man in this House sanguine enough to think that twenty-three millions will bring the war to a successful close, but merely as a Vote on account. The Government will require to come down to the House and ask for many more millions. I remember that when the hon. Member for East Clare stated here that it would cost you at least fifty millions of money to conquer the Transvaal he was sneered and laughed at from the opposite side of the House. This brave and gallant race, by their determined resistance to your large armaments, have shown themselves worthy of the freedom for which they are fighting so well. We wish to bring this war to an immediate close, because we think it should never have been entered upon. We are told that a blunder is worse than a crime, but this war is both a crime and a blunder.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. MCDERMOTT, Kilkenny, N.). House counted, and forty Members being found present:
MR. HAYDEN (continuing): I was saying that having made the mistake of entering on this war, which we, at least, regard as a blunder and a crime, the country would l>e well advised to bring it to a close as soon as possible—not to the conclusion which has been advocated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, not by the suppression of the liberty of that brave and gallant race, not by the extermination of a people who have shown how worthy they are of freedom, not by continuing the war until much blood, both British and Boer, is shed, not until many more millions of money are wasted, but by an act that might be described as generous and magnanimous on your part. You are a great Empire, your opponents are only two small Republics. You are strong enough, big enough, powerful enough, and rich enough to afford to do this magnanimous act. I do not think, however, there is much hope that at the present time such an act of magnanimity will be shown. But, at any rate, we on these benches, who represent a people who
302
consider themselves oppressed by you, and who from time to time, whenever the opportunity offered, have risen in arms in order to gain for themselves that freedom of which the Boers have proved so deserving, mean on this occasion, and on every other occasion, to offer the strongest opposition to this war, in resisting applications for more men or more money, and in every other shape or form. We have a deep interest ourselves in this matter, because of these thirteen millions which are now asked for we shall have to bear a far larger share, in our opinion,, than even if we were assenting and enthusiastic supporters of the war we would be entitled to pay. Seeing that our country is so opposed to this war, we say it should be exempt entirely from any tax on account of it, but we shall be compelled to pay, not only a share of the expense, but a grossly disproportionate share. I have no desire now to go into the financial relations between the two countries, nor should I be allowed to do so, but I may say that we believe we are unjustly taxed, and this Vote and every other of which this is a small part in connection with the war will add greatly to that injustice of which we complain. Now, mention was made to-night of the way in which Irish Militia regiments were urged and compelled to volunteer for this war. The Third Leinster Militia now stationed at Woolwich were absolutely compelled to appear to volunteer. They were placed on parade, and a high officer in command, not even their own Colonel reviewed them, and then asked that every man who did not wish to go to the war should step forward. The men, naturally confused, thought that the order was that those who would go to the war should step forward, others who; appreciated the position did not like to step forward because it might place them in a ridiculous light. Information was; then sent that the whole of the Leinster regiment had volunteered. As a matter of fact very few are willing to go to this war, and none of them volunteered in the strict sense of the word Another trick of the War Office is, when an officer is requested to volunteer and does not see his way to do so, to send him an envelope containing two white feathers. The British Government ought to be above such mean and petty resources and intimidation for the purposes of bringing in men who have already served in the Army. I wish merely to join in the pro-

303
test which has been made against this war, and to say that I do not consider I should be doing my duty to my constituency or the people of Ireland, who are so bitterly hostile to the war, if I did not offer every opposition in my power.
MR. WYNDHAM: As several specific questions have been addressed to me, I feel that I must rise to answer them, and that is the limit I propose to myself on this occasion. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is in his place, but he will not expect me to reply to a speech that had already been replied to. In fact, that speech contains a phrase quite sufficient for my purpose as the Minister in charge of this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman said he was quite prepared to support the Government in securing all the resources necessary for the prosecution of the war and for home defence, and that he would not accompany that support with any fastidious criticism. That is enough for my purpose, and I should be committing an outrage on him if I dealt further with his speech. We have listened to-night to a number of very useful speeches containing valuable suggestions by hon. Members interested in this question of defence. The hon. Member for Lewisham suggested that we should expand the trade of gun manufacturing, that we should endeavour to secure certain portions of guns, which could afterwards be put together at the Royal Arsenal. We are proceeding very much on those lines. Another hon. Member asked whether there was sufficient ammunition for practice, both in this country and in South Africa. That is the case. There is no shortness of ammunition at the present moment. Almost every topic has been threshed out except one, and it is to that subject alone that T shall now address my remarks. I am glad to see hon. Members from Ireland present hero, because the subject to which I wish to address myself is that of the Irish Militia battalions—a subject that has apparently excited a great deal of interest in their minds. The hon. Member for Tipperary was the first to bring the matter before us, but since then we have listened to the hon. Members for South Kerry and North Cork. There are one or two points which I will not treat at the outset as in dispute, because we may be in accord. There are uncertainties on questions of facts. Whether hon. Members will agree that the facts are as they ought to be I do not
304
know, but I will state the facts as I understand them. The hon. Member for West Cavan evidently believed that embodied Militiamen and Militiamen who, subsequent to embodiment, were transferred to this country or abroad had to rely for the support of their wives and families upon public charity, and upon public charity alone. That is not the case. So soon as a Militiaman is embodied he is entitled to the allowance which is given to I the Regular soldier, and the wife of every embodied Militiaman receives 1s. 1d. a day, according to the new rates, and 2d. a day for every girl under the age of sixteen and for every boy under the age of fourteen.
MR. J. P. FAREELL: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but as he is evidently alluding to me I would just like to ask him when this order came into force. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of applications for outdoor relief have been addressed to the guardians of unions in Ireland in consequence of there not being such an order?
MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that fact. It would not come within my knowledge.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I am the chairman of a board of guardians in Ireland, and I know it.
MR. WYNDHAM: I do not dispute that. Not this order, but another order has been in force for many years, and the allowance by the recent order has been increased to the figures I have given to the Committee. There is no doubt about it. Some reference has been made to a letter published in the newspapers, from his Eminence Cardinal Logue, and I have received a letter on the subject myself from an hon. Member representing an Irish constituency. It is clear from his Eminence's letter that the Militiaman whose case was brought before him was in the Militia Reserve. I might explain that one Militiaman out of every four goes into the Militia Reserve. When a Militiaman is allowed the privilege of going into the Militia Reserve he receives increased remuneration—instead of £1 a year he gets £2 a year—and for that extra remuneration he accepts extra obligations. Like a man in the Army Reserve, he is liable to go on active service whenever the Army call upon him. It might be that this man was told that he would get another sovereign a

305
year by accepting this obligation, and that he did not understand it; but that happened years ago. He has been receiving £1 a year for some time for the promise of certain services. The time for rendering those services has now come, and he has been called upon to give them. Some hon. Members opposite asked mo why Irish Militia battalions had been moved to England and vice versa. I almost despair of explaining that. It is owing, in the first place, to the limited barrack accommodation; in the second place, that Militia battalions were affiliated to Line battalions; and in the third place to the fact that these Line battalions were moved to Aldershot for mobilisation. A great many movements take place which to the cursory observer must appear arbitrary. There is a chance illustration which perhaps may explain the matter. The East Lancashire Regiment was selected to form part of the Seventh Division. At the time they were stationed at Jersey, but they were brought to Aldershot for concentration and sent from there to South Africa, leaving the men under twenty years of ago at Aldershot. Afterwards, when the Eighth Division was being formed, there was a demand for barrack accommodation at Aldershot, and the details of the East Lancashire Regiment were sent to the Curragh. I will not pursue that topic, for I do not believe anyone but the Inspector General of Fortifications really understands it.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask why in war times like the present you invariably start to train Irish military battalions in England, whereas in times of peace you leave them in their own districts.
MR. WYNDHAM: If this House should at any time consider it worth while to spend five millions for extra accommodation in order that these movements may be dispensed with, we shall be absolved from doing things which are so open to the criticism of people who do not understand. I now come to another question, as to the facts of which, I think, there is doubt, and that is whether any compulsion has been placed on Irish Militia battalions to volunteer for service abroad or for active service in South Africa. A man goes into the Militia knowing the obligations he undertakes—namely, to be trained for a certain number
306
of days in the year in time of peace, and to be called out and put in barracks indefinitely in time of war, though he is not to go on service abroad or on active service except by his own consent.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I read a letter from a man in the 3rd Minister Fusiliers in which he stated that he was compelled to go on active service together with a large number of others.
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Gentleman has laid his finger on the question of fact which I have already said was doubtful. The hon. Gentleman gave an account which does not tally with the conclusions I have arrived at. Most explicit orders have been issued to officers commanding Militia battalions not to put any pressure on the men to volunteer. When a battalion is embodied the practice has been to invite the men in a general parade to volunteer, and not to invite those who do not wish to volunteer to step forward. If that has been done, it is utterly against the spirit and the letter of the orders issued. If such an abuse has crept in, which I doubt, I may inform hon. Members that before any unit is accepted for foreign service the officer who inspects the unit—always a man unconnected with the regiment—gives to the men an opportunity at the last moment of saying, "Well, on second thoughts we prefer to stay at home." It is clear that in England no such difficulty has arisen, for the hon. Member for Staffordshire stated that, whereas 570 men of his battalion volunteered, 111—for excellent reasons, no doubt—preferred not to volunteer. We do not hold these men bound to go. On the contrary, we know that there is competition between the men and the battalions for the opportunity of going. So far as know, only two battalions that have had the opportunity have waived their right in favour of others, and they are composed of men engaged in a trade which at this time of year would have made volunteering on their part most onerous to them. Having said that I invite the Committee to judge. The Committee has heard nothing of the English and Scotch battalions, though we hear a great deal about the Irish battalions, and certainly have gather from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who represent Irish constituencies that a greater percentage of Irish battalions has been sent abroad. How do they reconcile that with

307
the fact that twenty-two English, two Welsh, four Scotch, and four Irish battalions have been sent away? The percentage of English battalions is sixty-four, and of Irish battalions twelve. The whole tenor of the speeches we have heard is that Irish battalions have been shoved to the front as Uriah was shoved to the front.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether they were to understand that only four Irish battalions had been sent to South Africa.
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Gentleman is to understand from me that four Irish battalions have been sent abroad and two others have been invited to volunteer, but have not yet given any definite answer.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I think you are referring to Militia battalions.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am only discussing the Militia. I do not propose to introduce the question of the Regular battalions unless hon. Members opposite desire it, but I may say that there are sixty-one English, three Welsh, eleven Scotch, and nine Irish regiments at the front, the percentage of the English being sixty-nine, and of the Irish nine. If it is specifically alleged by the hon. Member for Kilkenny that the commanding officer of any battalion has not complied with the War Office orders, if the hon. Member' will write me that he prefers that charge against any officer, I will inquire into it. If the hon. Member does not do so, I will not. I think the explanation of all this mystery is the well-known characteristic of all Irishmen—namely, to make themselves agreeable. All I can say is that if any commanding officer who has been ordered to invite those of his men who wished to volunteer has, in fact, asked those men who did not wish to volunteer to step forward, I can only say he must be an Irishman.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I am bound to say that I cannot express my entire satisfaction with the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I think he had quite sufficient to do to answer the questions. For instance, he was asked whether when this demand for Volunteers was made the men were on parade or not. Surely the Under Secretary could have answered yes or no. It seems to me as if the men were intimidated. The hon. Gentleman
308
was asked whether, doubts being raised as to the facts, he would allow certain Members of this House to go down to the place where the regiment was quartered and inquire whether the men were really free agents in the matter.
MR. WYNDHAMremarked that it would be contrary to all the rules of discipline to permit such a procedure.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENstill thought they would have been within their strict rights to have insisted upon it. He asked again if the Munster Fusiliers would be free to change their minds. They had been ordered to go out on the 25th inst.
MR. WYNDHAM: I do not know the case of the Munster Fusiliers, but if the hon. Member will bring me a definite allegation I will endeavour to meet it. The Munster Fusiliers were asked to volunteer, and they consented; and surely they must be taken to know their own minds.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENcited a case-where word was sent to the War Office that a whole regiment had volunteered to go; but the truth had now leaked out that not half of them were willing to go. He hoped Members on his side of the-House would keep the interest alive in this debate till they got a satisfactory answer. There was a remedy which Members could have recourse to when: responsible gentlemen like the Under Secretary would not answer questions, or rather—for his uniform courtesy was not to be denied—his Department held him back when his natural disposition was to answer frankly. Under these circumstances he would move to reduce every Vote till he did get a satisfactory answer.
*MR. WEIR ()sincerely hoped that the War Office would order an inquiry into the disaster which overtook the Highland Brigade at Magers-fontein, a disaster which he feared was brought about by gross carelessness, mismanagement, or incapacity. He also complained of the lack of proper arrangements for the troops embarking in bitter weather, the absence of proper shelter for the men, and seasonable meals. Some inquiry should also be instituted into the antiquated surgical instruments which are provided for our Military Hospitals at home, as also the defective sights of the Lee-Enfield and Lee-Metford rifles;

309
£50,000 of the former and many thousands of the latter were inaccurate, not only the fore-sights but back-sights. [Laughter.] This stupid blunder would cost the country from £12,000 to £15,000. It was a very serious matter to send men to the front armed with rifles which could not shoot straight. Who was to blame? Were these defective rifles made in Birmingham?
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."
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): On a point of order, Sir, does this motion for the closure include the whole Vote?
THE CHAIRMAN: The whole Vote.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And is the closure accepted before any hon. Member has moved an Amendment?
MR. FLAVIN (): I have a notice on the Paper to reduce Vote No. 1, and I have not yet had an opportunity of speaking on it.
MR. WEIR: It was my intention to move a reduction.
THE CHAIRMAN: It was open to the hon. Member to move his Amendment and he did not move it. [Laughter and interruption.] Order, order! The question is that the Question be now put.
MR. FLAVIN: I ask you, Sir, to give a ruling on my objection. I say it is most unfair.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On the point of order, Mr. Lowther. I gave notice several days ago to move the rejection of several items of the Vote. I have risen more than once this evening for the purpose of moving a reduction, but f have not been called on. That being so, I ask whether it is regular to move the closure in face of the notice on the Paper.
THE CHAIRMAN: The answer is yes.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On a further point of order. Is there any precedent for the Chair receiving a motion of closure on a vote of thirteen millions, in face of the notices of reduction which had been given, and without there being any discussion or opportunity of discussion of the reductions?
THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion has continued nearly four days.
MR. CRILLY (): That is not for you to consider.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is one of the points which I have to consider in receiving a motion for the closure. I have to consider the opportunities which the Opposition have had for discussing the Vote; and in my opinion in these four days they have had ample opportunity of bringing forward their objections.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On the point of order, Sir—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! I must ask hon. Members to proceed to the lobby.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When you say that this discussion has continued for four days, do you consider that the opportunity for bringing forward an Amendment was only given to-night?
THE CHAIRMAN: The opportunity for moving a reduction was given on the first Vote. One hon. Member had a notice of reduction on the Paper. He made a speech, and I asked him whether he wished to move the reduction. He said that he did not.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Mr. Lowther—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must ask hon. Members to proceed to the lobby. When a division has been called it is most irregular to hold a conversation with the Chair.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The whole of this proceeding is most irregular and disgraceful.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 189; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 17.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Banbury, Frederick George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Aird, John

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Bond, Edward

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Arnold, Alfred

Bartley, George C. T.

Butcher, John George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Caldwell, James

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Bainbridge, Emerson

Bethell, Commander

Carlile, William Walter

Baldwin, Alfred

Bill, Charles

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

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

Blakiston-Houston, John

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

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hazell, Walter

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Charrington, Spencer

Helder, Augustus

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Henderson, Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Rentoul, James Alexander

Colomb, Sir John Chas, Ready

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

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

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hobnouse, Henry

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Houston, R. P.

Kidley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Curzon, Viscount

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon, James

Robinson, Brooke

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Keuyon-Slaney, Col. William

Robson, William Snowdon

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n

Keswick, William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Denny, Colonel

Kimber, Henry

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm

Digby, John K. D. Wingtield

Knowles, Lees

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Rutherford, John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

Drucker, A.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Schwann, Charles E.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lorne, Marquess of

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dunn, Sir William

Lowles, John

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Emmott, Alfred

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

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

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

Maclure, Sir John William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Finch, George H.

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Crae, George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Fisher, William Hayes

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Strachey, Edward

Fison, Frederick William

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Monckton, Edward Philip

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Flower, Ernest

Monk, Charles James

Thornton, Percy M.

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Garfit, William

Morrell, George Herbert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Gedge, Sydney

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Mount, William George

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Gilliat, John Saunders

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

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Oldroyd, Mark

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

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Orr-Kwing, Charles Lindsay

Wylie, Alexander

Graham, Henry Robert

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Wyndham, George

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Yerburgh, Robert Annstrong

Gretton, John

Penn, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo

Pierpoint, Robert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs, SW

NOES.

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

Redmond, William (Clare)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Blake, Edward

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Lloyd-George, David

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Channing, Francis Allston

MacDonnell, Dr MA (Queen's C)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clark, Dr. G. B.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Colville, John

M'Cartan, Michael

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Dermott, Patrick

Tully, Jasper

Crean, Eugene

Maddison, Fred

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Crilly, Daniel

Mandeville, J. Francis

Weir, James Galloway

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Moss, Samuel

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Dalziel, James Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Doogan, P. C.

O'Malley, William

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Parnell, John Howard

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

Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 213; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 18.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Garfit, William

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Aird, John

Gedge, Sydney

Pierpoint, Robert

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lanes SW

Arnold, Alfred

Gilliat, John Saunders

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bainbridge, Emerson

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Baldwin, Alfred

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Purvis, Robert

Banbury, Frederick George

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Barnes, Frederic Gorrell

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Gretton, John

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

Bartley, George C. T.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Rickett, J. Compton

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Bethell, Commander

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Bill, Charles

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hazell, Walter

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Helder, Augustus

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bond, Edward

Henderson, Alexander

Robinson, Brooke

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Robson, William Snowdon

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Butcher, John George

Hobhouse, Henry

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

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Houston, R. P.

Rutherford, John

Carlile, William Walter

Hozier, Hon. Jas. H. Cecil

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Causton, Richard Knight

Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann, Charles E.

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

Kenyon, James

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Keswick, William

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kimber, Henry

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Charrington, Spencer

Knowles, Lees

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Lawrence, Sir E. D.(Cornwall)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Colling, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Colville, John

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lorne, Marquess of

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lowles, John

Strachey, Edward

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Curzon, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Macdona, John Cumming

Thornton, Percy M.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Maclure, Sir John William

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

M'Crae, George

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Duke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Drucker, A.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Monk, Charles James

Wason, Eugene

Dunn, Sir William

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Weir, James Galloway

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Morrell, George Herbert

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Emmott, Alfred

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Moss, Samuel

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Mount, William George

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Munch.

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

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

Finch, George H.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Fmlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wylie, Alexander

Fisher, William Hayes

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyndham, George

Fison, Frederick William

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Oldroyd, Mark

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Yoxall, James Henry

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Flower, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Sir William Walrond and

Galloway, William Johnson

Penn, John

Mr. Anstruther.

314

315

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, NE.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ambrose, Robert

Hogan, James Francis

Redmond, John E (Waterford)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Blake, Edward

Lloyd-George, David

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. MA (Queen's C

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crean, Eugene

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Crilly, Daniel

M'Cartan, Michael

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Tully, Jasper

Doogan, P. C.

Mandeville, J Francis

Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Malley, William

Flynn, James Christopher

Parnell, John Howard

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, the sum of £13,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. JOHN REDMOND (): I beg to move that you do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. My object in moving this motion is this. The discussion on the granting of this £13,000,000 commenced this evening. It is quite true, as was pointed out at question time by the Leader of the House, that the general question of the policy underlying the Vote has been under discussion for some days, but the actual voting of the money came under the consideration of the House only this evening. There were a number of Amendments on the Paper dealing with various of the items making up the £13,000,000. None of those Amendments were reached. One hon. Member who had charge of one of these Amendments rose repeatedly in his place during the evening, but was not fortunate enough to catch your eye. Under these circumstances, a very strong opinion is entertained by a large section in this House that an adequate opportunity was not given for testing the opinion of the Committee on these proposed reductions. That being so, a strong feeling having been raised on this matter by what has occurred, I think it will probably facilitate rather than interfere with the progress of public business if progress is
316
now reported and the Committee not asked to take any further step to-night-I do not at all desire to add to the heat of what has taken place, but I very strongly feel that when deep opinions are entertained on these Votes by a large section of the House, adequate opportunity ought to be given to those Members to test the value of their opinion in the division lobby. Under these circumstances I would ask the Leader of the House not to proceed further to-night, but to be content with having obtained by the use of the closure after a few hours' discussion this enormous vote of £13,000,000, and not to press us to grant the Report stage to-night. I beg to move that you do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman's speeches, whatever may be said of their substance, are always conciliatory in manner, and I certainly do not wish to add to the heat which he deprecates. I think, however, he is under some misapprehension as to the exact business before us. He spoke of taking the Report stage of the Vote. We are not on the Report stage; what we are on is a purely technical matter which, as far as my experience of the House is concerned, has always gone through without discussion or debate. The hon. Member has told us that an inadequate opportunity has been given for the discussion of these proposals, the importance of which we would be the last to minimise. I would point out to him that a Vote for men and a Vote for money by long custom and general consent have been regarded as forming one discussion, in the course of which hon. Members might express their opinions. The broader aspects of the question were discussed for four nights in this House. We then came to the details, and if hon.

317
Members wished to discuss details or; move reductions of separate items of the Vote, it was within their power to begin that operation at half-past four this afternoon.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rose several times for the purpose.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It may have been five o'clock. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that in order to keep the law it was necessary that we should get the Committee stage to-night. There was therefore no surprise, and every hon. Gentleman had present in his mind the exact Parliamentary situation in which we are placed. Nevertheless, with that Parliamentary situation well before their minds, speech after speech was made from those benches—
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: From your own benches.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not say exclusively from those benches, but from those benches speech after speech was made, but no reduction was moved. The hon. Gentleman upon whom I had the misfortune to move the closure about 'half an hour ago told the House before he sat down that he had intended to move a reduction of the last item of the Vote. If he had done that he would have cut out all those Amendments which we are now told it is absolutely vital in the interests of Parliamentary discussion we should deal with. I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, on an impartial review of the situation, will feel that we have been most anxious to give him and his friends and the House a full opportunity of discussing these matters.
MR. WEIR: May I point out that I did not say I wished to move the reduction on Vote 13; my intention was to move on the whole Vote.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When the hon. Gentleman intervened I was pointing out to the Committee that we had endeavoured as far as we could to give the amplest opportunity for the discussion of those Votes for men and money. So anxious have I been, so anxious I am, to give this opportunity, that, instead of carrying on the ordinary practice not only of this (Government, but of all Governments, of
318
taking first on Monday some other business, and taking the Report stage of these Votes after 12 o'clock as we are entitled to do, my desire is to have these two Votes first on Monday, so as to give, if possible, even greater opportunities for the discussion of these matters. As regards the particular subject now before the Committee, may I repeat what I said at the beginning, that it is purely a formal stage, and so far as my experience of the House is concerned has never led to substantial debate.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I only desire to point out the position in which I find myself with regard to the Amendments of which I had given notice. The First Lord of the Treasury has said perfectly truly that the principle underlying these Votes has been under discussion for some time. But it is equally true that not until this evening have we had an opportunity of moving a reduction of any of the items which go to make up the whole. Three or four days ago I put on the Paper, and it is on the Paper to day, notice of an Amendment on Item 1, and also on the whole Vote. I have had absolutely no opportunity of moving those reductions until to-day. The right hon. Gentleman says that ample opportunity was given this afternoon. I can only say that I have attended the House regularly since question time, and then the debate was carried on by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House himself, and various English Members. Afterwards some Irish Members spoke. I rose more than once for the purpose of moving the Amendment of which I had given notice, but when half-past ten arrived, instead of having an opportunity of doing so in the hour and a half which remained of the sitting, the closure was moved. Whatever may be said of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the closure on this Vote if he thought fit when twelve o'clock was approaching, I say, to say the least of it, it was extremely hard that when an hour and a half still remained—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! No discussion can be permitted upon a decision of the House with regard to the closure.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I think in this matter I have something to say

319
which would commend itself to the First Lord of the Treasury. He will understand that it is rather hard that, having given notice on the Paper, with one hour and a half of the sitting remaining, an opportunity should not he given to me to move this reduction and take a division upon it. That is my position, and I think that I have something to complain of.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am reluctant to remain seated under the imputation of the hon. Gentleman. Let me point put to him three facts which he appears to have forgotten. In the first place, if he was not called upon, any hon. Member among his friends could have moved his Amendment and he could have spoken upon it. The second fact which I would call his attention to is this: that it was very important from the point of view of the regularity of our proceedings that we should get through the Ways and Means business in which we arc engaged, because it could not have been taken after twelve o'clock, so that if the discussion had gone on as hon. Gentlemen desire it should have gone on, until twelve o'clock, we could not have carried out that stage of our proceedings. The third fact which I would call to the hon. Member's notice is that I have already promised the Committee to take the Report of these two Votes on Monday the first thing, and it rests with the hon. Gentleman himself so to distribute the time on Monday that any Amendment he might desire to move could be easily dealt with then.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to add one word. The right hon. Gentleman's position is this: He says he must get the Ways and Means business through to-night. But why one and a half hours before twelve does he move the closure? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has brought this trouble on himself, for he would have lost nothing, the House would have lost nothing, and the Government would have lost nothing by allowing the debate to go on one hour or so longer. In the most provocative and unnecessary way, according to his own statement, the right hon. Gentleman interfered with this motion by closuring the debate an hour before it was necessary. By so doing he has closed the mouths of certain Members of this House in this quarter. It is said that some Irish Members have spoken in this debate, but I venture to
320
say that the number who spoke was very few indeed, and opportunities of moving the Amendments of which they had given notice were not given to them because the right hon. Gentleman has moved the closure an hour and a-half before it was necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] Well, I will say an hour earlier than was necessary. By doing that he has brought this trouble upon himself, and I think Irishmen are bound to enter their protest against what they regard as a highhanded measure to stifle discussion upon a money Vote, the object of which they regard as iniquitous. Whatever opportunity is given to us under the rules of the House we shall certainly avail ourselves of it to mark our intense indignation at our mouths being closed, and at this enormous Vote of £13,000,000 being rushed through this Parliament with indecent haste.
MR. DALZIEL: Whatever our opinion may be on this Vote, I do not think it can be said that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up a very conciliatory attitude upon this matter. The responsibility for this war rests with the Government, and they must see this thing through, and any position they take up must, of course, have considerable weight with the Members of this House. What is the reply the right hon. Gentleman makes? Here we have a Vote for £13,000,000, I for the purposes of the present war. In connection with that war the Colonial Secretary admits that the Government have made mistakes. From his place in the House the right hon. Gentleman says they have made mistakes, and the only possible opportunity of discussing the direction in which they have made them is on the discussion of this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, says we have had a general discussion, but a general discussion does not at all meet the criticism which is to be offered. The right hon. Gentleman's reply is a novel proposal so far as this House is concerned. He asks why my hon. friend did not arrange with some other hon. Member who was fortunate enough to catch the Chairman's eye to move his Amendment. If we are going to reduce discussion in the House of Commons to a position of that kind we had better have no discussion at all. The Government had better say, "We have a majority of 200; we are sorry you do not agree with us." What does the Leader of the House

321
say? He simply replies that they have to get this money to-night. If the Government come before the House of Commons and say they have to got this money to-night, they ought to be able to give us some foundation for such a proposal. Here we have the Government coming down and asking for £13,000,000, admitting that they have made mistakes, and then moving the closure to carry the Vote through. The right hon. Gentleman says they are bound by law to have it carried through to-night. If he says the I necessity of the law demands it of course the House of Commons will attach a great deal of importance to that statement, but: why is it that we cannot have to-night i the reasons why the law makes this necessary? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact Act of Parliament that makes it necessary? Here we have the Leader of the House telling us that the law makes it necessary that this money should be granted to-night, and yet lie cannot get up and tell us the Act of Parliament that makes it necessary. If the Government come down to the House and make a demand like this upon our patience and consideration, surely it is not too much to ask for their authority. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] I cannot quite understand why hon. Members are so anxious to divide. Not one single Member on the front bench opposite can tell us what Act of Parliament makes it necessary that this Vote should be passed to-night. I think that is a most unfortunate and extraordinary position so far as the Committee is concerned, and before they make that statement they ought to give us the information we desire. Apart from the policy of the Government, I think there is a strong feeling in the House with regard to the action of the Government in this matter, because of all people in the world the Government ought not to suppress discussion upon this subject. There has been too much suppression already, and the Government ought to allow the fullest opportunity for discussion. Unless there are some absolute reasons in law why this money should be passed to-night, I think my hon. friend's resolution ought to be supported.
MR. CALDWELL (): I think the First Lord of the Treasury ought not to have moved the closure at the particular time he did. I must say that during this evening, and
322
the last time this matter was discussed, the impression in my mind was that the Government were not serious in pressing forward the business of the country, and when the right hon. Gentleman knew that the closure would have to be moved to-night, and that there were amendments down on the Paper, what was the necessity of hon. Members on the Government side of the House monopolising so much of the debate as they did this evening, and why did they not leave the discussion in the hands of the Irish Opposition. The debate was carried on simply between the supporters of the Government on the one hand and the Irish Members on the other, and I meant to rise at seven o'clock this evening to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to restrain Members on his own side of the House from speaking. We know why the closure was moved at half-past ten o'clock. Hon. Members opposite hurried back from their dinner, and the discussion was kept going in the interval by their friends in order that they might have time to return and vote in the division. Throughout this session I have not spoken at all on matters connected with the war: and I think the Government are very much to blame for the way in which they have allowed hon. Members on their own side practically to convey the impression that the discussion on this subject was being prolonged so as to provide an excuse for the Government appropriating next Tuesday. If the Government had followed their own precedents they would have found means to bring the debate to a close long before this.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I have not spoken in any of these debates this session during the war. I have, however, a matter of great importance which I wish to bring forward to-night. I am speaking now without the slightest heat or passion. I might say, without fear of contradiction, that on this side not half an hour more of time has been occupied than on the Government side. Though we differ from the First Lord very materially, he has always been able to sympathise with us and look at things from our point of view. If the discussion is closed to the Irish Members they must consider how far their attendance at this Parliament is only a farce. We are not permitted now to speak in this Parliament, and the question is for our constituencies to con-

323
sider whether we are to stay here when representation has become such a perfect farce. The right hon. Gentleman came down and stated that it was necessary to go into Committee of Ways and Means owing to some statutory provision. What is that statutory provision? What is the use of telling us about the laws of the Medes and the Persians, and then not telling us the statutes? You, Mr. Lowther, have ruled that the matter of the closure is not a subject for discussion, and to that ruling I deferentially bow. It is quite true, Mr. Lowther, that your discretion cannot be a subject of discussion.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not my discretion, for it is a vote of the House. The House has come to a decision on that point, and it is not competent for me to allow discussion upon it.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What I am alluding to is your discretion in putting it. I think I am perfectly justified, subject to your discretion, in commenting on the action of the First Lord in moving the closure.
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Very well then, I will comment upon it outside. [Ministerial laughter.] I again assure hon. Members opposite that I am not speaking in the slightest degree with anything like heat. [Ministerial laughter.] I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will take my word for that. I think my word is quite as good as that of any Gentleman on the other side, and I am not speaking with anything like heat. I will say once for all—and I hope my right hon. friend will consider the matter—that we shall have to consider our position here, and whether this House is a fit place for an Irish Member to sit in.
MR. D. A. THOMAS (): The right hon. Gentleman has given us a pledge that he will give us a day for the discussion of this question. When he gives such a pledge we recognise and believe that he will do everything he can to carry it out. I am sure that hon. Members of this House will regard any burking of my hon. friend's motion as a reluctance on the part of the
324
Government to discuss the question fully and freely, and such action will tend to show that certain suspicions which have been raised are well founded.
MR. FLAVIN: The Irish Members are most anxious to make a protest against the way in which the expression of their opinions has been stifled to-night. I would draw attention to the fact that most of the speeches have not been delivered from the Irish benches, although two Irish Members had notices of motion on the Notice Paper to reduce the Vote now before the House. The hon. Member for East Clare has two notices down, and I happen to have three Amendments down. Both of us have been precluded—I might say we have been boycotted—from expressing our opinions on the justice or otherwise of voting £13,000.000 to be spent on what we consider is an unjust war. I might also draw the First Lord's attention to the fact that on the principal sums that compose this £13,000,000—[Ministerial cries of "Order, order!] Any hon. Gentleman who wants to call me to order can come across the floor of the House and try his hand. I believe I am speaking correctly, and it is within the knowledge of the House that on two of these Votes, amounting to £8,000,000, not a single expression of opinion has come from the Irish benches. I had an opportunity of speaking last night for about ten minutes on the £13,000,000, which we take a greater interest in than we took in 125,000 men. I feel, as one who had three notices down on the Paper without having been given an opportunity of moving any of them, that this is a harsh and cruel attempt to stifle public-opinion on this question.
MR. TULLY: I want to discuss Vote 9, and I take rather a different view to some of my hon. friends behind me. They were objecting to the number of men and the amount of money that is being voted for this war, but my objection is on a different point. I think some opportunity should have been allowed to hon. Members on this side to discuss the question of the bad armaments, and I was endeavouring to do that when I was ruled out on a point of order. I think if the Liberal opposition were attending to their business they would have been in their places, and would have raised the

325
question of the inferior guns, rifles, and powder sent out to South Africa.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he cannot discuss these matters upon a motion for the adjournment of the Committee of Ways and Means.
MR. TULLY: Then I shall support the motion of my hon. and learned friend behind me to report progress. I think the Leader of the House, when he came down here and told us that this business would have to be taken because it was in accordance with the law, should have given us the law and stated the section of the statute. I shall support my hon. and learned friend's motion to report progress.
MR. CREAN (): It was my intention to put a question to the front bench in connection with this very matter. I intend to occupy a very short period of the time of this House in discussing these matters. I was deeply interested myself in connection with the removal of the Militia from the city of Cork.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be introduced upon the motion now before the Committee. The question is that I report progress.
MR. CREAN: That is the motion I am supporting, and I was going to speak on it. My reason is that we had no opportunity of speaking on the motion to enable us to deal with such a question as I have foreshadowed, and that is the very reason why we are protesting against the conduct of the First Lord of the Treasury in attempting to closure the debate. It is neither reasonable nor honest to do such a thing. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order!"] I am in perfect order. It would be far more decent of the First Lord to tell us that we have no voice in this matter, and we have only got to "pay, pay, pay." You do not want Irish Members, but you want Irish money to pay for the soldiers, and you want Irish soldiers to win your British battles. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, and what is more you want Irish generals to lead them. You think Irish Members who represent the people of Ireland ought to be closured in this House, and not be
326
allowed to speak on any matter. When the First Lord of the Treasury has fired off his speech he retires, and we do not see him again until he comes back to move the closure. We should be neglecting our duty to our constituencies if we voted more than our legal proportion to the war funds without protesting by every means in our power. I think we are perfectly justified in criticising the conduct of the First Lord of the Treasury or anyone else who obstructs the fair discussion of such a matter. Not a single one of the Amendments put down has been moved, and the Members who gave notice of them are not to be blamed for it. One after another they rose in their places to move these reductions, and time after time they wore ignored. I do not blame you, Mr. Lowther, for doing this. You might not be able to distinguish when you see hon. Gentlemen rise as to whether they are going to move reductions or speak on the general question; therefore it is very hard to blame you for this. But we should not lie honest if we did not state what we believe is the fact, that you took this notice for the closure unfairly—
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a proper imputation for the hon. Member to make. The question is that I report progress.
MR. CREAN: Then give me an opportunity to withdraw that expression. I beg to withdraw it. We would have disposed of the Vote in less time than it has taken us to make this protest, and there would be none of this indignation exhibited on these benches. We were prepared to discuss the Vote honestly and without prejudice—because we are capable of discussing it without prejudice, although we are being unfairly mulcted—and if we could not induce you to reduce it we would have at all events the satisfaction of showing that we were watching the interests of our constituents and doing our best to put down extravagant expenditure on a war which ought never to have been entered on.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I have a notice on the Paper to move a reduction of this Vote, and on the two occasions on which I have spoken I have indicated that if I did not get a satisfactory answer it

327
would be my duty to move that reduction, but that if the answer were satisfactory I had no desire to put the Committee to the inconvenience of a division. The answer was not satisfactory, and I then indicated that I would move the reduction of the Vote later as a protest against the way in which I and other hon. Members have been treated at question time in this House, and also against the desire which I thought I discovered on the part of the Department to withhold information. Therefore I think the action of the First Lord of the Treasury is not one upon which he can congratulate himself. My experience is that he always endeavours to throw oil on troubled waters in this House, but I cannot think that he made good use of his power to-night. We are not at all afraid of criticism of our conduct. We are sent here to protest against the war in a perfectly constitutional way, and we ought to be allowed to do it. We are the only representatives from Ireland who are expected to speak on this question. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, notably the hon. and gallant Gentleman for North Armagh—
THE CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the question before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to giving reasons for the adjournment.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: My reason why we ought to adjourn now is that there is no urgency in the matter at all. The Government have plenty of power to get money, and there is no disposition to withhold it from them. We could not do it if we would, but we certainly think that every opportunity should be given to us to say what we have been sent here to say. Hon. Gentlemen have looked glum enough since the session opened—
THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the Committee to the irrelevance of the hon. Member, and request him to confine his remarks strictly to the motion before the Committee.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will confine myself strictly to the motion that we ought to adjourn now. The First Lord of the Treasury has had his dash out, though I think he must feel sorry already for it, and I hope that even now he will
328
do a graceful act—as I know he is capable of doing—and accept the motion that progress be reported.
MR. MADDISON (): As an English Member, and one who is not opposed to supplies being granted to the Government, I would wish to give reasons why I feel compelled to vote with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. Some of us feel that this Vote is so mixed up between temporary and permanent purposes—
THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the original question before the Committee is the resolution in Ways and Means. The Committee having agreed to vote thirteen millions for certain services, the only question remaining is that that sum be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. There is a motion to report progress on that, and that is the only matter that can now be discussed.
MR. MADDISON: I was not going to argue the point at all. I was merely going to show why I join in the desire to get certain information from the First Lord of the Treasury. I was only about to say that while I could not vote against the whole Vote there were items in it which presented features to which I was opposed. I quite understand your ruling, Sir, that I cannot discuss what the Committee has already decided, and if the matter remained there I should be compelled to vote against the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. But the First Lord of the Treasury has been asked in, I think, a very proper manner and in a good spirit what is the actual law which compels the Government to force this Vote through to-night. Surely if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to save the time of the Committee, and really has this information, he would accomplish his purpose by giving it to us. If he gives us that information then I cannot vote with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. If he has that information it would suggest itself to one's mind that he would at once give it, he might indeed have anticipated a demand which he, as an old and illustrious Parliamentary hand, must have known would be made under the circumstances. We are suffering under a disadvantage, and the right hon. Gentleman might at

329
least give us the compensation of proving to us that he has no option in the matter, and that the Vote must be taken to-night. If he does not give us his authority I will vote with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUES (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Perhaps the Committee will pardon me if I explain the position in a very few sentences. In the first place, the War Office is called upon, as the Committee arc aware, to make certain heavy payments in consequence of the expenditure in behalf of the war beyond the amount authorised by Parliament in previous Votes of Supply. To-night the War Office has obtained in Supply authority to make those payments, but it cannot make them unless it is supplied with the means, and the means by which it can be supplied is by the Exchequer issuing money. Under the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, the Exchequer cannot issue money except under the authority of Parliament. What is essential is, that as soon as the Vote of Supply is obtained there shall be the authority of Parliament for the Exchequer to issue the money. That is all we are asking.
MR. MADDISON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman contends that there is a legal necessity to do that tonight? Would he give us the statute?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Exchequer is generally supposed to be very anxious to keep its money, and it cannot issue money without the authority of Parliament.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us anything that we did not know, and that the veriest tyro in Parliamentary procedure does not know. We all know that authority must be obtained by resolution such as that now before the Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any legal necessity compelling this Vote to be passed to-night?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Because the money is exhausted, and further money is wanted at once.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I submit that that is not quite a candid answer. Of course you want the money as soon as ever you can get it: but the case submitted was that, according to law, you were bound to get it before a certain date, and you gave the Committee to understand you were bound to get it tonight. There is no such legal obligation. So far as the strict letter of the law is concerned it would suit you just as well to get this money on Monday or Tuesday. Under the circumstances I think there is an additional argument against rushing this Vote through to-night, and there is strong reason why the independent members of the Committee should insist on having it postponed. If the Chancellor f the Exchequer were able to show by Act of Parliament that the money must be got to-night I would have nothing more to say, but I hope that under the circumstances the independent Members will assist in preventing this Vote being obtained to-night.
MR. CALDWELL: What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said is perfectly true, but it does not meet the question. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is no need whatever why the resolution should be passed to-night. I challenge any hon. Member to point to any Act of Parliament which provides that on this 16th of February you must have the Committee stage of Ways and Means. If Parliament had met a little later the date would be postponed, and it is all mere affectation; for the Government to appear to be so anxious to keep the law when all Governments notoriously evade and set it aside whenever it suits them.
MR. WEIR: I will support the motion before the Committee unless some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench gives a satisfactory explanation of the law on this matter. We are told that the law requires this money to be passed to-night. Now, I see the Attorney General in his place. Let him give us the statute; we will find the section for ourselves. I feel we have not been treated fairly. We were told that there was an inflexible law that the money should be passed to-night. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is the practice. We want the law, not the practice. I would suggest to the Leader

331
of the House that in order to get through the business more rapidly we should commence earlier in the day than three o'clock. This waste of time is most unseemly, and an effort should be made to avoid it. To-night, if the closure had not been moved, I should have finished in two minutes, and the discussion by the Irish Members, who ought to have an opportunity, would have proceeded.
MR. POWER: I have listened with attention to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he tried to prove that it was absolutely necessary that this Vote should be got to-night. He has utterly failed to prove his case, though he proved that, from a Government point of view, it would be desirable to get the
Vote to-night. That is a consideration which certainly carries no weight with us. I have sat in this House for a good many years. I remember the First Lord of the Treasury when he was a member of the fourth party, and even in those days he was remarkable for endeavouring to throw oil on troubled waters, and in his capacity as Leader of the House he does manage to throw oil on troubled waters. But his action to-night is opposed to all his previous actions. He moved the closure when it was absolutely unnecessary, and I think he may thank himself for the predicament in which he is placed.
Question put—
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 231. (Division List No. 19)

AYES.

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

Farvell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

O'Malley, William

Allison, Robert Andrew

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Parnell, John Howard

Ambrose, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Power, Patrick Joseph

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Blake, Edward

Hogan, James Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones. W. (Carnarvonshire)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clark, Dr. G. B.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

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

Clough, Walter Owen

McDonnell, Dr M. A. (Queen's C

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tully, Jasper

Crean, Eugene

M'Cartan, Michael

Weir, James Galloway

Crilly, Daniel

M'Ghee, Richard

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Maddison, Fred

Dalziel, James Henry

Mandeville, J. Francis

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

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Denny, Colonel

Aird, John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Burt, Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Arnold, Alfred

Butcher, John George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Caldwell, James

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hnry

Carlile, William Walter

Drucker, A.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Dunn, Sir William

Bainbridge, Emerson

Causton, Richard Knight

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Baird, John George Alexander

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

Emmot, Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Baldwin, Alfred

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

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

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fineh, George H.

Banbury, Frederick George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fison, Frederick William

Bartley, George C. T.

Charrington, Spencer

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Beckett, Ernest William

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Flower, Ernest

Bethell, Commander

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Bill, Charles

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Galloway, William Johnson

Blakiston-Houston, John

Cuhitt, Hon. Henry

Gartit, William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Curzon, Viscount

Gedge, Sydney

Bond, Edward

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Broderick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Card'gn

Gilliat, John Saunders

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Crae, George

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Ed. J.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Marks, Henry Hananel

Seton-Karr, Henry

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Graham, Henry Robert

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfars.)

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Gretton, John

Monk, Charles James

Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

Griffith, Ellis J.

More, Robt J. (Shropshire)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Morrell, George Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Mount, William George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Strachey, Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Strutt, Hon. Chas, Hedley

Hazell, Walter

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier

Helder, Augustus

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Henderson, Alexander

Oldroyd, Mark

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

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Tennant, Harold John

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Hobhouse, Henry

Pearson, Sir Weetman, D.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Horniman, Frederick John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darling'n

Thornton, Percy M.

Houston, R. P.

Pease, Joseph A. Northumb.)

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Penn, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Pierpoint, Robert

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Kenyon, James

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wason, Eugene

Keswick, William

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Kimber, Henry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Rentoul, James Alexander

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

Williams, Col. R, (Dorset)

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

Loder, Gerald W. E.

Ridley. Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Wylie, Alexander

Lorne, Marquess of

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wyndham, George

Longh, Thomas

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Lowles, John

Robinson, Brooke

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Robson, William Snowdon

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm

Sir William Walrond and

Macdona, John Cumming

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Mr. Anstruther.

Maclure, Sir John William

Rutherford, John

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Original Question again proposed.
Debate arising; and it being after midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business:—
Whereupon Mr. A. J. Balfour rose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of order. It is now after twelve o'clock. At the time twelve o'clock struck we were engaged in taking a division on a motion to report progress. When the Committee resumed, after that division, the main
334
question came before the Committee again. Under Rule I of the Standing-Orders it is provided that on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays the proceedings should stop at twelve of the clock unless in the case of the exceptions that are provided. Unless those exceptions enable you to put the main question on the resumption of the Committee after twelve o'clock, I submit it is incompetent for you to receive any motion for the closure, and it is incumbent on you to vacate the chair.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The practice which, has been followed to-night is one for which we have many precedents during this Parliament. If the hon. Member

335
will look at the next paragraph of the orders he will find these words:—
"Provided always that on the interruption of business the closure may be moved."
The interruption of business occurred when the numbers were announced from the chair; it being twelve o'clock, the interruption of business occurred; and on the interruption of business the First Lord of the Treasury moved the closure.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I submit respectfully that that does not do away with the operation of the rule which
says that business is to stop at twelve o'clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is the proviso doing it.
MR. CALDWELL: On a point of order. Is there any precedent for moving the closure when the original question has not been discussed at all?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The question is that the original question be now put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 227;. Noes, 40. (Division List, No. 20.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Aird, John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hobhouse, Henry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Horniman, Frederick John

Arnold, Alfred

Denny, Colonel

Houston, R. P.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Drucker, A.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bainbridge, Emerson

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Kenyon, James

Baird, John George Alexander

Dunn, Sir William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

Balearres, Lord

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Keswick. William

Baldwin, Alfred

Emmott, Alfred

Kimber, Henry

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Knowles, Lees

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Finch, George H.

Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

Bartley, George C. T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Fison, Frederick William

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Beckett, Ernest William

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bethell, Commander

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lorne, Marquess of

Bill, Charles

Flower, Ernest

Lough, Thomas

Blakiston-Houston, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lowles, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Galloway, William Johnson

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bond, Edward

Garfit, William

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Gedge, Sydney

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Maclure, Sir John William

Butcher, John George

Gilliat, John Saunders

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Caldwell, James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Crae, George

Carlile, William Walter

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Marks, Henry Hananel

Carmichael, Sir T. U. Gibson-

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Causton, Richard Knight

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

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Monckton, Edward Philip

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gretton, John

Monk, Charles James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Griffith, Ellis J.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Morrell, George Herbert

Charrington, Spencer

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Mount, William George

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Hazell, Walter

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Helder, Augustus

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Henderson, Alexander

Oldroyd, Mark

Curzon, Viscount

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Rutherford, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Penn, John

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Pierpoint, Robert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wason, Eugene

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Shaw-Stewart. M.H. (Renfrew)

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Weir, James Galloway

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Purvis, Robert

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Rentoul, James Alexander

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

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

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, Frederick W. Norfolk)

Rickett, J. Compton

Stevenson Francis S.

Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Mathew W.

Strachey, Edward

Wodehouse, Rt Hon E.R. (Bath)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wylie, Alexander

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier

Wyndham, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Robinson, Brooke

Tennant, Harold John

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Sir William Walrond and Mr.

Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham

Thornton, Percy M.

Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham Win. (Cork, N.E.)

Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.

O'Malley, William

Ambrose, Robert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Parnell, John Howard

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blake, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hogan, James Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clark, Dr. G. B.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

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

Clough, Walter Owen

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

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tully, Jasper

Crean, Eugene

Mc'Cartan, Michael

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Crilly, Daniel

M'Ghee, Richard

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Maddison, Fred.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Dalziel, James Henry

Mandeville, J. Francis

Sir Thomas Esmonde and

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Captain Donelan.

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Original (Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided; Ayes, 224; Noes, 32. (Division List, No. 21.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. V.

Blakiston-Houston, John

Cox, Irvin Edward Bainbridge

Aird, John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bond, Edward

Curzon, Viscount

Arnold, Alfred

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Butcher, John George

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Denny, Colonel

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Caldwell, James

Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Carlile, William Walter

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bainbridge, Emerson

Carmichael, Sir T. D, Gibson-

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Baird, John George Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Balcarres, Lord

Causton, Richard Knight

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Baldwin, Alfred

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

Dunn, Sir William

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

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh'e

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Banbury, Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Emmott, Alfred

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

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

Bartley, George C. T.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Finch, George H.

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Charrington, Spencer

Fisher, William Hayes

Beckett, Ernest William

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fison, Frederick William

Bethell, Commander

Colomb. Sir John Charles Ready

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Bill, Charles

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

339

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lough, Thomas

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Flower, Ernest

Lowles, John

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Galloway, William Johnson

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Rutherford, John

Garfit, William

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Gedge, Sydney

Macdona, John Cummming

Samuel, Harry M. (Limehouse)

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

Maclure, Sir John William

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Ed. J.

Gilliat, John Saunders

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Crae, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Marks, Henry Hananel

Shaw-Stewart. M.H. (Renfrew)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Massey, Mainwaring, Hn W. K.

Sinclair, Capt,. J. (Forfarshire)

Goschen. Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geor's

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir Herbert K.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Graham, Henry Robert

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsb'ry

Monckton, Edward Philip

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

Gretton, John

Monk, Charles James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Griffith, Ellis J.

More Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Strachey, Edward

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Morrell, George Herbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Morton, Arthur H.A. Deptford

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Moss, Samuel

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mount, William George

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

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tennant, Harold John

Hazell, Walter

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Helder, Augustus

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Henderson, Alexander

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Thornton, Percy M.

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Oldroyd, Mark

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hobhouse, Henry

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Horniman, Frederick John

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Houston, R. P.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Walton Joseph (Bainsley)

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Pease, Joseph A. (Nortbumb.)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Penn, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wason, Eugene

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pierpoint, Robert

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Jones, David Brynm. (Swansea

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Weir James Galloway

Jones, William (Carnarvons)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Kenyon, James

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

William, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Keswick, William

Purvis, Robert

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm.

Kimber, Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

Knowles, Lees

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

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

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Richardson Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

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

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Wylie, Alexander

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wyndham, George

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Robinson, Brooke

Lorne, Marquess of

Robson, William Snowdon

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork. N.E.

Flynn, James Christopher

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

Redmond, E. (Waterford)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hogan, James Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Blake, Edward

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumbland

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Clough, Walter Owen

MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Queen's C

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Crean, Eugene

M'Cartan, Michael

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Crilly, Daniel

M'Ghee, Richard

Tully, Jasper

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Mandeville, J. Francis

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

O'Malley, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Parnell, John Howard

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday
next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
Adjourned at half after Twelve of the clock, till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
Army and Navy Investment Trust [H.L.]
Westgate and Birchington Water [H.L.]
Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) [H.L.].
Cleethorpes Gas [H.L.].
Commercial Union Assurance Company [H.L.].
Exmouth and District Water [H.L.].
Fishguard Water and Gas [H.L.].
Governments Stock and Other Securities Investment Company [H.L.].
Kingston-upon-Thames Gas [H.L.].
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway [H.L.].
London Sea Water Supply [H.L.].
Margate Pier and Harbour [H.L.].
New Russia Company [H.L.].
Rhymney Iron Company [H.L.].
Universal Life Assurance Society [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  MARYPORT HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  NATIONAL MARKETS AND STORES AND WORKSHOPS BILL [H.L.].
  Presented, and read 1a.

  CORK ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read 2a on Tuesday next.
  BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.]
  To be read 2a on Tuesday the 27th instant.

  BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  BURY AND DISTRICT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.].
  CHURCH'S PATENT BILL [H.L.].
  DUNDEE HARBOUR BILL [H.L.].
  EAST SHROPSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.].
  EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.].
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [H.L.].
  FALKIRK AND DISTRICT WATER BILL, [H.L.]
  FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.].
  HIGHAM FERRARS WATER BILL [H.L.].
  IPSWICH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
  KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  LANCASHIRE INEBRIATES ACTS BOARD BILL [H.L.].
  LINCOLN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.].
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
  MARGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],
  MENSTONE WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.].
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.].
  MORLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHILL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
  MOTHERWELL WATER BILL [H.L.].
  MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL [H.L.].
  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  Read 2a.
  NEWTOWN AND LLANLLWCHAIARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.].
  OTLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.].
  PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.].
  PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.].
  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [H.L.].
  SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR KILL [H.L.].
  SOUTH ESSEX WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.].
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.].
  Read 2a.

  LEITH BURCH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, to increase the number of magistrates in the burgh of Leith—was presented by the Lord Balfour read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 12.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
  Statutes made for the University of London by the Commissioners appointed under the Act; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed (No. 11.)
  RAILWAY PASSENGER COMMUNICATION.
  Circular from the Board of Trade to the railway companies of the United Kingdom, and correspondence relating thereto; presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1877 (COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES).
  Treasury Minute, dated 10th February 1900, awarding to Mr. Mark Perrin, Registrar of Judgments in Ireland, whoso office has been consolidated with the Record and Writ Office by order of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a compensation allowance under the Act.

  CERTIFIED INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (REGULATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT).
  Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management and discipline of the St. Joseph's Certified Inebriate Reformatory at Ashford, in the county of Middlesex.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, seeing the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in his place, I should like to ask him whether the Government have received any news as to whether the Boers are still at Magersfontein; and also whether they have an)' news as to the position of our forces at Rensburgh.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, we have received no news, except the telegram which was published this morning announcing General French's arrival at Kimberley.

  THE PATRIOTIC FUND—APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT WAR.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to ask Earl Nelson, chairman of the executive committee of the Patriotic Fund, whether he can state to the House if there are any sums now standing to the credit of the old funds which can be applied to the war in South Africa; and what arrangements have been made by the Commissioners for the relief of the widows and orphans of the soldiers and sailors, and of the Yeomanry I and home and colonial Volunteers, who may lose their lives in South Africa. I

  197
  owe some apology to your Lordships for putting a question to a private Member, but I hope the fact that my question is put at the express request of Earl Nelson will be a sufficient excuse for asking it. I believe that Earl Nelson desires to give some explanation in respect to certain attacks which have appeared in the newspapers and elsewhere with regard to the procedure of the Royal Patriotic Fund. I will make no observation with regard to my first question, because I feel quite incapable of going into the history of the fund; but, with regard to the second question, I should like to make a few remarks. In common with most of your Lordships, I noticed an attack made on the Royal Commissioners in the columns of the Morning Post in connection with the case of a lady who had applied to them. Being a subscriber to the fund, I asked the secretary to be kind enough to inform me whether the statements which were made in the newspaper to which I have alluded were correct or otherwise, and my noble friend Lord Chelmsford, who had been assisting in the secretarial work of the Commission, gave me a full account of the case in question, ft appeared that the executive committee were not aware that the lady was the widow of one of our gallant colonial Volunteers who, unfortunately, lost his life in the course of the war in South Africa. If they had been aware of that fact the circular which was complained of in the Morning Post would not have been sent to her. It seemed to me that that was a sufficient explanation of that particular case. As to the form issued to applicants by the executive committee, in the case of widows of soldiers and sailors who lose their lives in South Africa I venture to think that it is desirable that the executive committee should consider whether some modifications cannot be made in it. The form to which I stake exception is a form upon yellow paper which the widow has to take to the local post office, where she receives a certificate that she is alive. Some such certificate is, of course, absolutely necessary for the distribution of the fund and cannot be objected to, but attached to the bottom of the same form is a request for all sorts of information respecting the condition and so on of the widow. It
  198
  has been explained to me that it was not intended that this form should be filled up at the post office, but I fully believe that nine out of every ten persons looking at the form would imagine that the whole of it had to be filled up at the post office, and anyone who knows anything of the working classes of this country knows how they object to making any statement of their circumstances at their own village post office. In my own neighbourhood they even go to a post office far away from their village in order to invest their savings, so as to prevent the knowledge of their circumstances being in the hands of their neighbours. Therefore, I think it is very desirable, in order to prevent misapprehension, that this form should be quite apart and distinct from that which has to be filled up at the post office in order to show the Commissioners that the widow who receives the allowance is alive. I would point out to your Lordships that old forms in a matter of this kind are hardly applicable at the present day. There has been a great improvement of late years in our soldiers and sailors, and their families are in a very different position now to what they were forty years ago when this fund was first instituted. With regard to the widows of men serving in the Yeomanry and Volunteers, I would suggest to the Executive Committee of the Patriotic Fund that they should be dealt with, if possible, through the county committees, which have been established all over England for the purpose of assisting the Yeomanry and Volunteers who have gone to the front. In my own county ' the committee have insured the lives of the Volunteers and Yeomanry, and the secretary of the committee will be perfectly able to obtain for the Patriotic Commissioners every information respecting the circumstances of the widows when any casualty occurs in those two forces. In connection with the Colonial Volunteers, I apprehend that some arrangement will be made for communicating with the Agents-General of the different colonies, as in most of the colonies funds have already been raised. Overlapping would thus be avoided. Then with regard to the general wav of dealing with soldiers' and sailors' widows, I should think the Committee of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners might with perfect safety make their inquiries through the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. In my

  199
  county there is a complete organisation, in every petty sessional division, managed by ladies, and these ladies can be relied upon to give the Commissioners every information respecting the widows of any soldier or sailor residing in the county. There is no necessity, so far as I can see, for continuing the practice which I believe is adopted now of immediately sending, on receipt of the account of the feat of a soldier or sailor, a lump sum of money to the widow without any inquiry whatever. If that sum of money were sent to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association those ladies who are managing it would take care that the money was, not squandered. It is quite possible that when a widow gets a considerable sum given her in one lump the money is not economically spent. I think some move elastic plan than that now carried out by the Executive Committee might be more applicable to present circumstances. I should have spoken with more confidence on this matter if I had not seen a letter in The Times this morning criticising the management of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association in the Metropolis. I cannot speak to that, I can only speak for my own county, where it is properly organised, and I do not see why the Commissioners should not deal with the Association in places where the organisation is good. In making, these observations I hope your Lordships will not suppose that I am desirous of throwing any blame on the Patriotic Fund Commissioners or the Executive Committee. There are on the Commission and Executive Committee many friends of my own, including my noble friend the Chairman of Committees in this House, and several Naval and Military officers, who are as good men of business as I ever came across, and I have not the slightest doubt that if they put their minds to this matter they will be able to devise some scheme that would be generally satisfactory. I do not look upon the widows of soldiers and sailors who lose their lives in the service of the country as paupers, and I do not think they ought to be treated as such. They have a right to assistance from the Royal Patriotic Fund, and every consideration ought to be shown to them—not only to their circumstances, but also to their feelings. With these few remarks I beg to ask the ques-
  200
  tion of my noble friend of which I have given notice.
  EARL NELSON: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity given me by the question which has been so kindly put by my noble friend. Lord Northbrook, of answering some of the statements which have been made against the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund. I hope your Lordships will bear with me, because at the present moment I represent what I suppose is one of the most heartily abused bodies which exist in the United Kingdom, Many accusers seem to have risen up against us, all of whom suggest certain very familiar proverbs. One proverb is, "Any stick will do to beat a dog"; another is, "Give a dog a bad name, and you may as well hang him"; and a third is, "If you throw enough mud, some of it is sure to stick." In the remarks I am about to make—and I will be as short as I can—I hope to remove some of that mud. I was not going to mention the lady's name, but one case—the one referred to by the noble Earl—has caused a great deal of the present outburst against us. The-story is a very simple one. The widow of a private trooper in the Light Horse lost her husband at Ladysmith. In the first letter she wrote to the Commissioners, it is perfectly true, she wrote to the Secretary and stated that she had received a very kind present from the Morning Post of £50, but she went on to say that since September her husband had' sent her nothing, that she was in bad: circumstances, and had been unable to pay the cost of her lodging and board and other necessities. I do not think that our Assistant Secretary can be blamed for treating the case as that of a common soldier's widow, and sending her at once £5 for herself and £5 for her child, and promising, on her filling up a form which was enclosed, that she would have 6s., a week during her widowhood. She received the money and sent it back again, saying the Commissioners had offended; her, that she was not so badly off, and that I she certainly could not take money under those conditions. All I can say is that neither the secretary nor the executive I committee had the slightest intention of giving her any insult, and if we had known that she was the widow of one of the colonial Volunteers we should certainly have taken a different course, because we had already been thinking, that such cases.

  201
  might come before us. We had interviewed the Agents-General for Natal and the Cape, and were merely awaiting telegrams from South Africa which they had sent off to know what action we had better take in respect of the Volunteers at the Cape. Now, my Lords, with regard to the form, it is as Lord Northbrook described it. I have a copy of it here—the yellow form. Of course, having received a Post Office Order, the widow is obliged to state, before the postmistress that she is a widow, and the widow of the man whom she represents to be her husband, and then she receives the money. As Lord North-brook has told you, there is also below a list of questions which we are obliged to ask as to age, children, and earnings of the family. Lord Northbrook, like others, was himself taken in, and seemed to think, as well as some people who have been writing of us in the newspapers, that the Executive Committee demanded that the widow should actually answer these questions before the post mistress of the parish. That is not the case. Those statements are to be made by her to a medical man, or a minister of religion, or an officer, who will help the applicant to make the statement correctly and witness her signature. There is as little publicity, therefore, as possible. There was one other matter referred to in reference to this form. The form consists of one piece of paper, and folds up. On the back of it, for the assistance of uneducated widows, as many of them are, appears the address of the secretary of the Patriotic Fund, and the form is also stamped with a halfpenny stamp. Having put a halfpenny stamp on the form we thought it necessary to say, to prevent our being charged double postage, "This must not be sealed." It is now stated that we give a peremptory order that all the statements applicants make about their life should be made public. Immediately we found that was the case the Executive Committee had this direction struck off the form, and I am happy to say that we have a Sub-Committee who are at present (Carefully considering the question. I do not think, myself, that we can very much modify the form; but the suggestion of separating the receipt from the form is, perhaps, a good one, and it might be possible to adopt it and put a flap over Abe form so that it may be sealed down.
  202
  However that may be, I can assure your Lordships that the Executive Committee are as anxious as anybody to avoid all harshness or discourtesy, whether to the widow of a private or the widow of a Volunteer. There was one statement made by my noble friend which, in one sense, I am prepared to accept, and in another sense I cannot accept. He said, "Widows have a right." Now in one sense I accept that. If they require assistance they have a tight to it, but we have always maintained from the very first that the money which lie entrusted to us, and is often the outcome of much self-denial in those who give it, must not be wrongfully distributed. Therefore it is necessary to lay down lines of procedure, and to find out what private means an applicant has—whether she is the widow of an officer or a private. That is the cause of a great deal of friction and of many of the attacks upon us. In the Morning Post there was a letter from a gentleman, whom I answered, about a Mrs. G., a major's widow, who had at one time received an allowance from the Patriotic Fund. At last she made a report that she had come into £100 a year or more, which with her other means put her outside the limit, which is £219, of the Patriotic Fund. She had more than that sum, and therefore we were obliged to discontinue payment. We might alter the rule and make the limit higher, but the same thing obtains in the case of the widows of soldiers. If from private sources they are receiving a large sum we generally give them a small allowance so as to keep their names on the books, and, if they lose the good situations they are in, we put them on again to the full allowance. That is the line upon which we have acted. With regard to the second question, namely, what arrangements have been made by the Commissioners for the relief of the widows and orphans of the soldiers and sailors and of the Yeomanry and home and colonial Volunteers who may lose their lives in South Africa, I would point out that it was stated by Mr. Wyndham, at a meeting called by the Lord Mayor, that it was expected that some difficulty would arise in connection with Volunteers at the Cape, because while the Australians and Canadians are serving at exactly the same rates as our own soldiers at the Cape, in Natal they are receiving

  203
  5s. a day instead of 5s. or 6s. a week. Therefore it was obvious there must be some alteration, and it was proposed that a certain sum in those cases should be paid down. We consulted the Agents General of the two colonies. The Agent General of the Cape was satisfied with the proposal we put before him of £50 down, but the Agent General of Natal thought it would not be sufficient, and the reason very soon became obvious. I am happy to know that the Cape Government have promised pensions to the widows, and I believe the same thing is going to be done in Canada; but in Natal, which is a poorer colony, and has suffered much by the war, I suppose that cannot be expected. At all events, as soon as we hear from the Cape we shall deal with any of these cases which may come up in the most generous way we can, and in such a way as not to hurt the susceptibilities of the applicants. The same thing will happen with our own Volunteers. A great many of them may leave well-to-do widows, and it might be an insult to offer 5s. or 6s. a week in these cases. Therefore I think we should give them the option of a weekly sum or a donation down. We shall also be most pleased to adopt the suggestion to consult the Agents General of the Colonies in the case of colonial Volunteers, and the county committees in the case of Volunteers at home. Another suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Northbrook was that we should avail ourselves of Colonel Gildea's committees. They are very valuable committees, but we have committees also at Portsmouth and Devonport, and, in fact, in all the counties where there are military or naval stations. We should be very pleased to have any help, and there is no reason why some of the ladies should not serve on our committees as well. I feel there is quite enough work in connection with the widows and orphans, the sick and wounded, and sailors' families to have three distinct departments. I do not think there is any danger of overlapping, because those who are looking after the wives and families left at home would immediately let us know if the husband was unhappily killed, and we should put the widow on our list. In the same way, if a wounded soldier died of his wounds his widow would immediately be put on our list. I have been asked what arrangements have been made by the Commissioners for carrying out
  204
  this work. There exists a certain amount f jealousy of the Patriotic Fund, and an idea prevails that we are wrongly using the money. Certain local subscriptions have been raised, and committees in the localities want to have the management of them. I do not think there is any necessity to overlap here. We had a case the other day from Oldham, and the local committee boasted that they had got £7,000, and that they were going; to deal with all the cases of widows and orphans in the neighbourhood of Oldham. In the cases of one widow we did not grant anything because the Oldham Committee were going to make her a grant. But the Commissioners took care to place her name on their books, and indicated that when the £7,000 was exhausted they would give her a permanent allowance. I believe the same thing has been done in Liverpool. We have been in correspondence with the Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow, who wanted to know on what terms we would administer funds raised locally if they were handed over to us. I have had a most satisfactory letter from them accepting the lines of policy laid down by the Commissioners. The conditions laid down were that the money raised for the relief of widows or orphans and other dependents of officers and men who may lose their lives in the present war will be applied in its entirety, on the simple basis of using it for those for whom it is raised; that it will not be capitalised or the relief limited to the interest on capital; that all sufferers who fall under the above category, or persons entitled to relief, will be dealt with according to the circumstances of the case, irrespective of the regiment, branch of the service, or nationality to which the soldier or sailor through whom the claim arises may belong; that the widows will have to produce their marriage certificates, and information may be asked as to private means, and not only widows but dependent relatives of those losing their lives in the war will be entitled to relief on showing that they were regularly supported by the deceased; and, lastly, that the executive committee of the Patriotic Fund will avail themselves of the assistance of local committees in procuring information, and, if thought desirable, in distributing the relief. Now I come to the next question which my noble friend asked me—namely, "What funds

  205
  are available from the old fund for the use of those suffering in the Transvaal War?" I am sorry to say there are none except the funds for orphan children. We have endowed girls' schools. There is an endowment by which Roman Catholic children can be supported in Roman Catholic schools, and there are nominations for officers' children to Wellington College and the like. These are perpetual, and as soon as vacancies occur they are available. Already we have in our Victoria Asylum at Wandsworth several orphan children from the Transvaal. There are also other funds we have to administer, which in one sense are available. These are the Zervudachi Fund, the Rodriguez Fund, the Royal Naval Relief Fund, and the Soldiers' Effects Fund. These are perpetual funds of which the interest alone can be dealt with. But the Zervudachi Fund and the Rodriguez Fund are now very full. The Royal Navy Relief Fund is a very small fund, but lately, under the order of our Commission of 1881, funds have been ordered to be paid over which will enable us to help more sailors and to raise the very small allowance of 3s. 6d. in the lower ranks to 5s. With regard to the Soldiers' Effects Fund, abuse has been poured on us in consequence of our not touching the capital and not utilising to the full the large income, which at present is £1,000 a year. As a matter of fact we have not filled the fund to the full, simply because we have not had the cases sent to us to enable us to do so. That fund has only accumulated by degrees. The War Office hare paid over sometimes £5,000 a year, sometimes more, but it will be less as it goes on, and there: is no chance of a permanent increase of the fund, or a large increase of the fund, because it came from the deferred pay and the sale of the effects of soldiers. Where we were not able to find out the parent the money was obliged to be capitalised, because any of it might be demanded at any time if the parents could be discovered. It is, moreover, a soldier's fund. In a letter which I sent to The Times, I threw off all the responsibility of the miserable 3s. 6d. allowance upon the War Office; but I must apologise to the War Office for having done so. I now find that we are responsible for it. When the fund was first handed over to us the War Office asked what allowance ought to be pro-
  206
  vided. We then had the Royal Naval Relief Fund as our guide. The sum involved was very small, and we were only able to begin by giving 3s. 6d.; and our answer was that the Army and Navy ought to be treated alike. We therefore thought the allowance should be 3s. 6d.; but I hope that the War Office will now permit us to raise that allowance to 5s., as we have done in respect of the Royal Navy Relief Fund. If that is done it will absorb a great deal of the present unoccupied £4,000 a year which exists of that fund. I now come to the great cause of attack. Everybody is asking, "What are you doing with your great accumulated funds?" I find that on December 31, 1898—the Report for this year has not yet been published—the total of all funds—(we have some eighteen funds besides the original Patriotic Fund)—was £889,867. We have sunk £237,332 in the endowment of schools, nominations to Wellington College, and the like. We have capital sums amounting to nearly £181,000, and there are a certain number of sums amounting to nearly £4,500 which are absolutely required—I shall say a word or two later on about them and then there is an available surplus of £150,000. The Royal Commissioners are accused of alienating the funds from their original purpose. What business have we, it is asked, to take away funds from those for whom they were originally intended, and spend them in endowing schools and the like? The answer is—and probably I am the only member of the original Royal Commission who is still alive and can give it—that when we had first to deal with the: funds raised from the Russian War we had such an overflow of children that it; was perfectly impossible to find boarding-schools for them. We sent children to some boarding schools where the discipline was all wrong, and we got into hot water owing to the way in which the children were treated there, and from the first we felt the necessity of building the girls' school and the boys' school. But at that time we had no idea of endowing the schools. We believed, as everybody else did, that the war was likely to be protracted, and that the money was subscribed under that impression, so that when the war suddenly ceased, and actuarial advice had been obtained as to the sum necessary to deal with the case, we thought we were justified in using the

  207
  surplus in endowments. That is how came about. The course we took was accepted by a Royal Commission and by Act of Parliament. As to the large balances, they are necessary to secure the allowance to widows. It stands to reason that, if you promise that you will give so much a year to a widow for her life or widowhood, you have to invest a certain sum to enable you to do it. The balances decrease year by year as the number of widows decreases. That is the real history of the great accumulations. There was a surplus of £4,000 from the Zulu War Fund, and we paid £3,000 of it to the general fund for the Army. Then we had at the end of 1895 a sum of £117,000, as to which we have been asked: "Why did you husband that up and allow it to accumulate? Why did you not appropriate it to other purposes?" The reason was simply this. There were a certain number of Crimean widows whom we were obliged to refuse because they could not prove that their husbands' deaths had been caused by disease or wounds received in the war, and therefore we thought it right and just to throw open this fund to every Crimean widow who had been married before the termination of the war. The old rule caused much heartburning and abuse, but under the new arrangement there was still more heartburning and more abuse. It was thought that the widows who would become eligible for relief under it would lie about 600, but, unfortunately, they jumped up to about 1,300. It was only possible to assist 500, so that there were about 800 unprovided for. It has been said that we are keeping these unhappy widows out of their rightful heritage. It is quite untrue to say that this was their rightful heritage. The sum had never been raised for them at all, but it was recognised that the door had been opened to them, and we are doing all we can to meet their case. At the last meeting of the Royal Commissioners we decided to submit the matter to an actuary to find out how far the remainder of these widows could be assisted, although this step will have the effect of eating up all the funds, which, I am afraid, will not go even far enough. I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but before sitting down I should like to explain our mode of work. Our mode of work is illustrated
  208
  by the manner in which we dealt with the Zulu War Fund. I mention this fund because a gentleman in another place pitched into us for the manner in which we dealt with it. The Zulu War Fund was a very small fund, and the actuary advised that in the lower ranks an allowance of 3s. 6d. a week only could be made to widows until their remarriage. This fund was examined by the actuary every three years, and it was found at the end of the first three years that so many of the widows had remarried that there-was a surplus. We immediately raised the allowance of the remaining widows to 6s. a week, and as more of the widows remarried it was found possible to renew the allowance to women who had been rewidowed. Out of fifty all but three were traced. We still found there was a balance, and we paid it over—we were blamed by a gentleman in the other House who moved an Amendment to the Address for having paid it over—to a general fund for the purpose of another war. I think I have given a complete answer to the accusations made against us. It has been said that we have dealt only with the interest of our funds, and have hoarded the capital, and that the original sufferers have in this way been defrauded. There is a complete answer to that charge in the eighteenth Report of the Commission, presented in July, 1880. The figures would be much better if I had them up to date, but I find that to the original £1,500,000 which was entrusted to our care and trusteeship there had been added, by dividends, interest, annuities, and changed investments, a sum of £1,502,000, and there had been given to the Russian war widows up to that time—1875—£1,518,000, or £18,000 more than the original sum, so that all the endowments and expenses of management and all the pensions have been met without encroachment on the original sum. Up to date we have helped from the Russian War Fund alone 3,047 widows of privates, 231 widows of officers, 5,168 children of privates, and 880 children of officers. As to the present war, I find that the Lord Mayor has transferred to the Commissioners £250,000, and of this we have expended £3,000 in relief. Immediate relief has been given to 319 widows and 315 children in anticipation of being placed on the fund, and 170 widows have since been granted weekly allowances,

  209
  which have been paid in advance up to March 31st. Thirty-three dependent relatives have been granted donations; and three officers' widows and one dependent relative have been given assistance. We have been asked to state what we have done in order that it may be compared with the grants from other funds. We are bound to be guided in our grants by consideration of what the total claims on the fund may be. Before we squander our funds we must know how many widows we will have to deal with. Then we can try to make arrangements which will ensure the widows support for the rest of their lives and promise them greater benefits in old age. I am very much obliged to your Lordships for the kind way in which you have listened to what I am afraid has been a very tedious statement; but knowing the way in which we have been attacked, I am sure the House will not grudge the time I have occupied in explaining the position and endeavouring to wipe off some of the mud which has been thrown upon us.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, as chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund, I wish to add a few words to what has fallen from my noble friend, who has given a very detailed account of our proceedings. I can assure your Lordships that, far from wishing to hoard money, the Commissioners have been desirous of spending it in the most proper and systematic manner. It is very easy to throw away money; but it is a very different thing to spend it in such a manner as to give the greatest amount of relief, not only at the moment, but in the future. That has been the object of every member of the Royal Patriotic Fund Commission. Those members only meet when it is necessary to support the executive committee, who carry out the work from day to day, and their duties have been so fully explained by the noble Earl that I need not further enlarge upon them. I hope your Lordships will understand that there is but one object which the Patriotic Fund Commission, from myself and every member of it downwards, has at heart, which is to enable the liberal and generous amount which is subscribed by the public to go to the fullest extent which it can in relief, but on reasonable and judicious principles. We are in communication constantly with the War Office—and, in
  210
  fact, more or less we act under the direction of the War Office—and we are also in communication with other departments of the State. We are not able to do things offhand without any consideration. Of course, these subscriptions that are got up under peculiar circumstances have no sort of further control than the momentary impulse of the public and the subscribers themselves. We are obliged to look to the future as well as to the present, and we have endeavoured to do so. I hope it will be found the more this question is gone into that the attacks made on the Commissioners are unreasonable and most unjust. They may produce more money for the special subscriptions which have certainly been raised, and which, of course, have greater attraction for the public; but we do not look for attraction. We look for real advantage—permanent advantage and useful advantage—and that is the object with which Her Majesty's (Government originally, I believe, introduced the Patriotic Fund Commission; and I firmly believe the more this question is gone into as to the principles upon which we are acting the more it will be found that we have acted not on any irregular or unjustifiable principles, but on common sense principles. This is only, my Lords, what every individual who undertakes such tasks would have done his best to accomplish had it been left entirely in his own hands. I thought it right to add these few words to the full explanation which has been given by the chairman of the executive committee, who, with the other Commissioners, exerts himself to the fullest extent to do the best even under very difficult circumstances.
  EARL CARRINGTON: There was one statement made by the noble Earl which, if I understood it rightly, will give very great satisfaction. I should like an answer "Yes" or "No" to the following question—Do I understand the noble Earl to say that if ladies who are working different districts of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association in different parts of the country send in authentic cases of widows who require relief, those cases will be put on the list of the Patriotic Fund? I need hardly remind the noble Earl that the Association works for the wives and families of soldiers and sailors, and not for their widows; but it would be very satisfactory

  211
  if it could be distinctly understood that if authentic cases are sent in from the different districts, and confirmed by the War Office, they will be put on the list of the Patriotic Fund.
  EARL NELSON: I have no hesitation, my Lords, in saying that they will be, and I will go further and say to these committees that the Commissioners will be only too happy to welcome their assistance.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: A great deal has been said in the very interesting statement of the noble Earl, confirmed as it has been by His Royal Highness, as to future widows, but I confess I have a feeling for the Crimean widows. I should like to know, and I ask the question with the most friendly feeling, if the statement is true—and I gather that it is true from a letter from the secretary of one of the local committees of the Patriotic Fund—that there are still many Crimean widows unprovided for. I understand also from the noble Earl's statement, that there is still a fund of £4,000 annually available. If so, I should like to know whether that fund is going to be expended in the relief of these widows, or whether it is going to be distributed amongst the widows of the Transvaal War.
  EARL NELSON: It is curious how difficult it is to make people understand. The £4,000 referred to is the interest on the money which stands to the credit of the Soldiers' Effects Fund, and, therefore, cannot be touched by any general funds including sailors as well as soldiers. It would be, I venture to say, a pity if that £4,000 was alienated from the soldiers' widows who are now applying for it every day. I have great hopes myself that we shall have sufficient funds to deal with the Transvaal widows, and I am perfectly certain that if we can only restore confidence in the Patriotic Fund Commissioners we need only make an appeal to the generous public to obtain sufficient money. I believe that there has just been placed on the Fund the last of the original Crimean widows, and they are all now provided for. But when we opened the door to every widow whose husband had served in. the Russian War, and who had married before peace was signed, we found that there were still 800 widows outstanding. At present the fund
  212
  does not appear sufficient to deal with all of them, but we propose to lay the matter before an actuary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The War Office, I need not say, is largely interested in the administration of the Patriotic Fund controlled by the Commissioners, and therefore I may be permitted to say a word before this discussion closes. I think it is idle to conceal from ourselves the fact that there has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction—I do not say for a moment well founded, but still dissatisfaction—with the procedure of the Royal Commissioners during recent years. I have no doubt that the Commissioners are closely tied. They are in the position of trustees, and therefore not entirely free agents. The noble Earl who spoke on behalf of the Commissioners suggested that they had been accused of defrauding persons, entitled to relief. My Lords, I never hoard any such suggestion made. I believe the only suggestion that has been made is that the Commissioners may have shown themselves too tenacious occasionally of the funds which they had to administer. Matters have been a good deal complicated quite recently by the manner—I will not say the unexpected, but the extraordinary manner—in which the public has subscribed to the various funds for the relief of the families of soldiers engaged in the present war, and I think it is natural that the public, having subscribed these large sums, a part of which will be administered by the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, should be anxious to know a little more about the methods which the Commissioners follow. A suggestion has, I believe, been made that there should be an inquiry of some kind, certainly not a hostile inquiry, but an amicable discussion as to the manner in which those different funds are administered. It is abundantly clear from the statement of the noble Earl that their administration presents many very complicated issues, and that the subject is one that will bear a little examination. What I think the public is most anxious for is that I in all these liberal distributions of money there should be no overlapping between one fund and another. I have no doubt that if the Royal Commissioners are approached, as I have no doubt they will be, in a most respectful spirit they will

  213
  not discourage an inquiry of the kind which has been suggested.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: I forgot to mention that we are actually at this moment assisting those whom we know to be widows and orphans. That, I think, is an important point. We give £5 to every widow and £1 to every child when we get the intimation from the War Office that the woman has become a widow and that she has children. Then we make our inquiry for the purpose of the permanent pension which it is intended to give. But we actually give, and at this moment we are giving, £5 and £1 respectively to 287 widows and 290 orphans. We have given a permanent allowance to 139 widows of this war, and donations to thirty-one dependent relatives. We have also assisted three officers' widows and one relative, so that it is not really a correct statement to say that we do not already assist to the best of our ability the widows and orphans.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I should like to say one word with regard to the question put by Viscount Knutsford. Originally the Patriotic Fund, as has been stated by the noble Earl the chairman of the executive committee, amounted to £1,500,000. That amount, with the accumulations, has been gradually exhausted, and there remains of that fund only sufficient, in the opinion of the actuaries, to ensure that the Crimean widows shall receive their allowances while they live. It will be seen that the Patriotic Fund has to be dealt with in quite a different way from a fund which has no permanent claim upon it. A Supplementary Commission was appointed in 1897, and the surplus, which amounted to £130,000, was placed into a different fund called the Patriotic General Fund. That fund was extended to cover the cases of those widows of soldiers and sailors who married before the end of the Crimean War, and whose husbands had subsequently died. When that fund began to be administered it was calculated that a far smaller number of widows of such men existed than has actually proved to be case. On investigation it was found that there wore something like 1,300 or 1,400 widows, and the fund, even in its present state, is not calculated to be sufficient to deal with all those cases. I understand that 500
  214
  cases have been actually dealt with, and that allowances on the ordinary Patriotic scale have been given.
  EARL NELSON: We have not been able to come up to the Patriotic scale.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: At the last meeting of the Commissioners it was decided to refer to an actuary to ascertain how far this £136,000, exhausting the capital as well as the interest, will enable us to deal with the cases of these widows. The noble Lord will at once see that we are limited by our means, and cannot go beyond them. The actuary will toll us how far we can go beyond what has been done at present to relieve all the Crimean widows.
  LORD RAGLAN: Do I understand that the widows and orphans of officers and men of the embodied Militia serving in South Africa will benefit from the fund equally with the other branches of the service?
  EARL NELSON: If the widows of Volunteers who have gone out share, I should think those of the Militia would share too.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: They will undoubtedly share. We have given a distinct promise that the widows of all soldiers, whether our own or colonial, shall receive the benefit of the funds which have been subscribed.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six of the clock to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.