Sitting of 19 February 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 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. 62 has been complied with, viz:—
  Belfast and County Down Railway Bill.
  Great Northern Railway Bill.
  Mid-Kent Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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 Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE.)
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Military Lands Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. JOHN BURNS (): This Bill empowers the City of London—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Does the hon. Member object?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No, Sir. I do not wish to object. I only wish to point out that the Bill raises the same matter of principle as the London County Council (Spitalfields Market) Bill, and providing that no objection comes from any representative of the City, I suggest that they should both be sent to the same committee.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  AIRDRIE, COATBRIDGE, AND DISTRICT WATER TRUST BILL.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
  BUCKINGHAM, TOWCESTER, AND METROPOLITAN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
  FARNWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL.
  GLASTONBURY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  HAMILTON BURGH BILL.
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  ILFRACOMBE IMPROVEMENT BILL.

  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
  LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITAL-FIELDS MARKET) BILL.
  LOWESTOFT RAILWAY BILL.
  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL.
  MARKET WEIGHTON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION BILL.
  MORECAMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  OSSETT CORPORATION GAS BILL.
  PONTEFRACT PARK BILL.
  READING CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
  SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
  SOUTHPORT EXTENSION AND TRAMWAYS BILL.
  SPALDING URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION TRAMSWAYS BILL.
  TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION MARKET BILL.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE BILL.

  WOODBRIDGE DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Kingston; Worcester; and Croydon; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Fryston; Ryhill; Pilsey; Flimby; Clifton; Broughton Moor; St. Helens; Buckhill and Oakley; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
  Petition from Portpatrick, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF WOODLANDS.
  Petition from Malton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from London: Bishop's Stortford; and Carlton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Hull; and Eccles; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTH-SHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Bishop's Stortford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Ardrossan: Peebles; Broughty Ferry; Stonehaven; and Turriff; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS, 1867 TO 1898.
  Petitions for alteration of Laws, from Hemsworth; and Wycombe; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
  Annual Account presented, for the period ended 20th November, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 62.]

  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented of the Gross Amount, of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the

  357
  National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to the 5th January, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 63.]

  MILITARY WORKS ACT, 1897.
  Account presented, for the period ended 31st March, 1899, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 64.]
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Accounts presented for the year ended 21st December, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 65.]
  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) (NON-CONGESTED DISTRICTS).
  Account presented for the year ended 31st December, 1899 [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 10th January, 1900, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Inspector of Canal Boats under the Local Government Board, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Dinah Cohen, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Dinah Cohen to be at large on condition that she enter the Royal Victoria Home, Horfield, near Bristol [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONTEMPT OF COURT (IRELAND) PERSONS COMMITTED.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th October, 1899; Mr. Patrickatrid Aloysius M'Hugh]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the Commissioners in Lunacy during the six
  358
  months ending on the 31st December, 1899 [by Act].

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC COMMISSION.
  Address for "Return of Pensions and Retiring Allowance granted to Employees by the Royal Patriotic Commissioners since the issue of the Royal Commission, 1854:—

  Name.

  Nature of employment.

  Date of engagement.

  Date of retirement.

  Age of retirement.

  Salary prior to retirement.

  Amount of pension or retiring allowance.

  Date of last payment.

  (Mr. Kearley.)

  H.M.S. "DIADEM," ETC. (BOILERS).
  Return ordered, "showing the cost of repairs to the Boilers of H.M.S. 'Diadem,' 'Niobo,' 'Arrogant,' 'Furious,' 'Powerful,' and 'Terrible,' since they were commissioned."—(Mr. William Allan.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PROPOSED DAY OF HUMILIATION.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether as on 28th February, 1855, Her Most Gracious Majesty, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, issued a Proclamation that Wednesday, 21st March, 1855, be observed as a day of solemn fast, humiliation, and prayer, for a blessing on our arms, and the restoration of peace, Her Majesty's present advisers will tender to the Sovereign similar advice that such a day may be appointed as was done during the Crimean War. [Ironical Nationalist cheers.] In putting the question may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is seemly that such a question should be received with jeers by hon. Members.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon, friend I have to say that the precedent he quotes from

  359
  1855 does not seem to me to be applicable, and that Her Majesty's Government have not tendered to Her Majesty the advice suggested by my hon. friend.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND—COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MR. KEARLEY (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state what course of action the Government contemplate with regard to the administration of the various funds controlled by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund; and whether steps are being taken to ascertain the disposition of those who are collecting and administering now funds for the war to bring them into one general fund, in order to ensure the most liberal distribution without the danger of overlapping.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have obtained the consent of the following gentlemen to serve on the Committee of Inquiry—a Committee which is neither parliamentary nor departmental—an independent Committee:—

  Lord Justice Henn Collins (Chairman);

  The Earl of Northbrook, G.C.S.I.;

  The Right Hon. William Lidderdale;

  The Lord Mayor;

  Mr. Whitmore, M.P.;

  Mr. Robson, Q.C., M.P.;

  The Rev. Cosmo Lang;

  Col. Twynam.

  The order of reference is as follows:—
  "To consider with the assistance of the managers of the various charitable funds available for the relief of persons who have served or are serving in the Held, or of the families of such persons, how these funds may be distributed with the least waste, and to the best advantage of those for whom they were intended."

  TRANSPORT—H.M.S. "POWERFUL" AND "TERRIBLE."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many troops were carried by Her Majesty's ship "Powerful" from the Mauritius to South Africa; on what date did she reach a South African port; and how many days has she been at sea, and how many days in harbour. I beg also to ask what number of troops, if any, Her Majesty's ship "Terrible" carried to South Africa; on
  360
  what date did she first arrive at a South African port; and since that date how many days has she been at sea, and how many days in harbour.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The number of troops carried by the "Powerful" from Mauritius to South Africa was 448. She arrived at Durban on 10th October, 1899. The "Terrible" carried no troops, but a considerable number of supernumeraries, mostly destined for the China Station. She arrived at Simon's Bay on 14th October, 1899. We have no information as to the actual time these vessels have been at sea since the date of their arrival in South African waters, but except when they were proceeding between Simon's Bay and Durban they have mainly been stationed in or off those ports.

  TRANSPORT—CONTRACTS WITH THE HOUSTON LINE.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of steamships owned by the Houston Line of Liverpool that have been chartered by the Admiralty for the conveyance of troops, mules, or stores for Her Majesty's Government; whether he can state the number of vessels belonging to other shipping firms that have been chartered by Her Majesty's Government through the chairman of the Houston; Line; whether he will state the amount paid for the use of such vessels by the Admiralty, and whether he can state the amount paid by the Houston Line to the owners of the vessels so chartered; whether he can state the reasons why the Admiralty did not charter such vessels, direct instead of permitting sub-letting of contracts; and whether he is aware that the said Houston Line has made abnormal profits out of the sub-letting of such contracts.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Only one steamship belonging to, or tendered by, the Houston Line has been chartered by the Admiralty, namely, the "Manchester Port," for mounted troops. None were chartered by the Admiralty for the conveyance of horses or mules or Government stores. An arrangement was made with this firm for the conveyance from New Orleans.

  361
  and the Mediterranean of a portion of the mules required for service in South Africa at a rate per head inclusive of all expenses, and seven vessels were so employed. As I have previously stated in reply to similar questions, I am not prepared to publish the rates contracted to be paid, so long as the chartering of steamers for South African service continues. The terms of the arrangement with the firm left with them the responsibility of employing suitable vessels under ordinary trade conditions, subject to the general approval of the Transport Department. I know nothing of the matter referred to in the last paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's question.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph and say why the Government did not charter the vessels direct instead of through the agency of Messrs. Houston?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think I have answered that. We contracted with them to convey the mules at so much per head, and loft it to the shipowners of this and other lines to select suitable vessels. We were only liable for the rate per head. We could not therefore charter ships.
  MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  NAVAL WAR DESPATCHES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received from Admiral Harris any despatches from the officers in command of the Naval Brigade at the battle of Graspan and the battle of Colenso: if so, when were these despatches received; whether he is unable to publish them without the permission of the military authorities: if so, whether lie has applied for that permission, and when he expects to receive it; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent in future the postponement of publication of the naval despatches until many weeks after the publication of the military despatches relating to the same operations.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the second
  362
  and third paragraphs, I may state that I am still discussing with the War Office the subject of the publication of these despatches. There are some important issues involved.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question as to when the despatches were received. Can he say whether he got permission—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go through the whole question again.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When were the despatches received?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The despatches were received some time ago.

  ALLEGED PROCLAMATION'S BY THE BOER REPUBLlCS ANNEXING PORTIONS OF CAPE COLONY.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the statement of President Steyn, denying the annexation by the Orange Free State of portions of Cape Colony (see p. 217 Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 43), Her Majesty's Government have received any information further than that contained in Sir Alfred Milner's despatch of 28th October, 1899 (see p. 101, Cd. 43), in reference to the alleged annexation by the Government of the South African Republic or Orange Free State of portions of the Cape Colony, and in that of 16th November, 1899 (see p. 166, Cd. 43): and whether he can give the dates and terms of the proclamations of annexation said to have been issued.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The proclamations received as printed at p. 218 of Cd. 43 do not announce annexation, but have been interpreted in that sense. Speeches have been made by commandants on occupying places in the colony to the effect that they were now part of the Republics, and British subjects have been systematically commandeered. Moreover, the Presidents have stated that those African-born inhabitants of the colonies of Natal and of the Cape Colony, who have joined them

  363
  in the conflict, are considered and treated by them as citizens of the State among the forces of which they are found.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRput another question, which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has raised any fresh point. I have answered his question.

  JAMESON RAID—MR. NEWTON AND SIR GRAHAM BOWER.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Newton and Sir Graham Bower, who gave evidence before the South Africa Committee, are still in the service of the Crown; and, if so, in what capacities, and whether they have been reduced or promoted.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir G. Bower is now serving as Colonial Secretary in Mauritius and Mr. Newton as Colonial Secretary in British Honduras. In neither case is the appointment considered as valuable as that previously held by the officer. Sir Graham Bower was without salary for fourteen months before he took up his appointment in Mauritius.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): Before these gentlemen were appointed on the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman did he satisfy himself as to their strict personal honour?
  MR. FLAVIN (): Why were not the two gentlemen sent to Pretoria?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. BAYLEY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he expressed his approval of the text of Sir Graham Bower's memorandum explaining his position with regard to the Jameson raid, before the Colonial Office appointed him Her Majesty's representative at Mauritius.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know to what memorandum the hon. Member refers. I have no record or recollection of having approved the text
  364
  of any memorandum by Sir Graham Bower, who is, of course, not Her Majesty's representative in Mauritius, only Colonial Secretary.

  SOUTH AFRICAN FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE—MR. TATHAM.
  MR. BIRRELL (Fifeshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the letter printed upon page 38 of Cd. 43, the recently issued South African Further Correspondence, and forwarded by the Governor of Natal, comes from the same Mr. Tatham who is mentioned in the despatch of the Governor dated 4th January, 1896, from which an extract is to be found upon page 25 of Parliamentary Paper [C. 8063], of 1896.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the same Mr. Tatham.

  REORGANISATION OF THE FORCES OF THE EMPIRE—SUGGESTED PARTICIPATION OF THE COLONIES.
  MR. DRAGE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the services rendered by the colonies in the present war, he will consider the desirability of consulting the colonial Governments before proposing any scheme for the permanent reorganisation of the forces of the Empire; and whether, in view of the approaching visit of representatives of the Australian colonies, he will suggest to the Secretary of State the desirability of obtaining their views on the subject.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Yes, Sir, I have already said that we propose to await and, if need be, to invite, an expression of opinion from colonial Governments on that and kindred questions. The representatives have been sent over with a special object, but their presence may give us opportunities of informally discussing the question which the hon. Member has raised.

  REGULAR TROOPS NOW TN THE COUNTRY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many of the 98,000 men of the Regular Army now remaining in these islands are over twenty years of age, of good

  365
  character, fully trained as efficient soldiers in all respects, and could pass the medical examination as regards fitness to proceed to the front in South Africa.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: During the present emergency the Secretary of State cannot consent to give a return which would take up so much time and entail so much labour.

  DESTITUTE RELATIVES OF SOLDIERS—CASE OF BRIDGET GAVIN.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Glare, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the statement that an old woman named Bridget Gravin, who is an inmate of the Doncaster workhouse, has seven sons in the Army; and whether any steps will be taken to afford her some provision for her old age.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State for War has no funds at his disposal out of which assistance can be given in such cases.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we to understand from this answer that Irishwomen may send their sons to the front, and be refused all means of support?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order—
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): Cannot the War Office recommend some of those who hold public funds collected for the relief of the wives and orphans of soldiers at the front to apply some of the money to keeping these poor women out of the workhouse?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I think that a very good suggestion.

  NORTH CORK MILITIA.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, when the North Cork Militia volunteered for foreign service, they were distinctly informed that their services were required for the war in South Africa, or whether many members of the regiment believed that, by volunteering for foreign service, they merely volunteered to go abroad to Gibraltar or some similar
  366
  station; whether early in the morning of 13th January the regiment were removed by special train from Templemore, where they had been stationed, to Queenstown, and embarked in the troopship for South Africa without being allowed to take leave of their wives and children or other near relatives who had travelled to Queenstown from various parts of the County Cork to bid them farewell, and who had in many cases, owing to their extreme poverty, passed the night in the open air; whether it is the fact that the men were put up in locked carriages, and were thus precluded from shaking hands with or even seeing their relatives, who crowded the railway station to take a last look at them; and what explanation, if any, has the Secretary of State for War to offer of this treatment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Battalions are invited to volunteer for service abroad, thus obviating disappointment if they are not selected for South Africa. There is no foundation for the allegation in the first paragraph of the question. It has been found necessary, in order to prevent confusion and accidents, to lay down strict rules in regard to embarkation. In accordance with these, no persons except on duty were allowed on the platforms or quays until the troops had embarked, when the general public were allowed on the quay until the vessel sailed. The railway carriages arc generally locked to prevent accidents.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Am I to gather from this explanation that the relatives of these men were not permitted to bid them "Good-bye"?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that would be a fair inference. They had precisely the same privileges as are enjoyed by ladies of all ranks in this country.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right km. Gentleman aware that some of the friends of the Militiamen were locked out and prevented seeing the men off?
  [No answer was given.]

  RESERVE OF ARTILLERY OFFICERS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether

  367
  many officers, having recently served in the Horse and Field Artillery, were in the Reserve of Officers and drawing retired pay before the outbreak of the war; and whether it is intended to employ these officers in forming the forty-three new batteries.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The number of such officers was sixty-seven, and of these the subalterns have been already given employment. It is not at present intended to utilise the services of officers above that rank for the new batteries. They are being employed in other capacities as suitable opportunities offer.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many subalterns?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: There were very few.

  ALLEGED SPIES IN THE YEOMANRY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg-to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the circumstances attending the arrest of two yeomen named Buck on a charge of being Boer spies.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: An inquiry is now proceeding in this matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate when he is likely to give me an answer?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I should think about Thursday. This is not a purely military matter, but it affects the civil authorities as well.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will put the question again on Thursday.

  STATUS OF VOLUNTEER FIELD OFFICERS.
  SIR F. S. POWELL (): On behalf of the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether they have finally decided to allow duly qualified field officers of Volunteers to be only allowed to go to the front as subalterns.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: If my hon. friend refers to Volunteer officers attached to Regular regiments, it is unlikely that it
  368
  will be possible to employ such officers as a rule in a rank above that of subaltern.

  VOLUNTEER PENSION FUND.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of organising a pension fund for the Volunteer forces in connection with any permanent scheme of military reorganisation.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: A Volunteer is, under present regulations, entitled to pension if wounded or invalided when called out on actual military service. It is not in contemplation to grant pensions under any other circumstances.

  IRISH MILITIA—ALLEGED COMPULSORY VOLUNTEERING—CASE OF DUFFY.
  MR. M'GHEE (): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a letter dated 12th February from His Eminence Dr. Logue, the Cardinal Primate of all Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh, with reference to the case of a man named Duffy, who is illiterate and under orders, as he believes, as a Militia Reservist for South Africa, without having been given any option as to accepting or declining active service abroad; and whether, having regard to, the statements of the Cardinal of the complete ignorance of this man, as to what he is bound to do, the War Office will institute an investigation into the circumstances and give a pledge that no Irish Militiaman be deputed for foreign service without his express consent given independently, or without the exercise of any influence direct or indirect to procure it.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: A Militiaman, on joining the Militia Reserve deliberately accepts liability for service abroad, and is paid an annual retaining fee of £1 for undertaking that obligation.

  TRANSPORT WAGONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether one of the Australian colonies offered to furnish 100 transport wagons for use in the present war; whether that offer was accepted subject

  369
  to the wagons being sent to this country for inspection; and whether ho will consider the advisability of having them inspected in the colony, thus obviating the necessity of transporting these wagons many extra thousands of miles by sea, and causing moreover a delay of nearly two months as regards the date of their arrival at the Cape.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWEL-WlLLIAMS,): Offers to supply Army Service wagons have been received from Canada, New South Wales, and Victoria, but have not as yet been accepted. If wagons are obtained from these sources they will be used in this country to replace wagons sent to South Africa, and the inspection would naturally be in England, any difficulty in the case of Australia being met by the expedient of forwarding a sample wagon. In the case of Canada, local inspection may be possible.

  CAMP BEDSTEAD CONTRACTS.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have recently let tenders for 10,000 iron camp bedsteads, with the stipulation that the same be manufactured in conformity with War Office pattern which dates back to 1808; and whether the latest type of single bedstead with wire mattress and wood frame was offered but refused.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The pattern of the camp bedstead in. use does not date from the year 1808 but is pattern No. 808, about five years old; 10,000 of this pattern have not been ordered, but orders have been placed for trade patterns of the latest types.

  POST OFFICE VOLUNTEERS—RATE OF PAY.
  MR. STEADMAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in the case of postal employees who have volunteered for service at the front, the arrangement by which the difference between their postal pay and the cost of providing a substitute to do their duty is retained for
  370
  them by the Department till their return home can be relaxed, and the money paid over at once to dependent relatives in cases of necessity.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Treasury has given instructions that any available balance of the civil pay of a man serving with the colours may, at the discretion of the head of his Department, be paid periodically to a representative authorised by the absent man to receive such balance. Unless notification of death is received, such assigned payments may be continued.
  MR. STEADMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long that notice has been given.
  MR. HANBURY: Only within the last two or three days.

  IRISH NATIONALISTS AND BRITISH REVERSES—ALLEGED DISLOYALTY IN DOWNPATRICK.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conduct of certain parties in Downpatrick, and principally to that of the John Street Nationalist Band who, whenever any check to the British arms in South Africa is announced, are in the habit of parading the streets of Downpatrick cheering for the Boers and cursing the Queen, and whether, in view of the possibility that such proceedings may incite to retaliation, he will take such measures as will prevent their recurrence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The Nationalist band referred to in the question paraded the streets on the night of the 10th instant, using disloyal expressions. The conduct of this band was highly provocative and aggressive, and, as a matter of fact, considerable resentment was shown by the loyalist section of the populace. The police, however, who were present succeeded in keeping the parties asunder and preventing a serious breach of the peace.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Will steps be taken to prevent a repetition of such conduct?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has it transpired that any of these bandsmen suggested the kicking of the Queen's Crown into the Boyne?
  [No answer was given.]

  PUBLIC SCHOOL HERO RECORDS IN SCOTLAND.
  *MR. ORR-EWING (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the encouragement promised by the Committee of Council to the managers of public elementary schools in England, to adopt the proposal to inscribe upon their walls the names and record of their old scholars who have distinguished themselves by acts of heroism and self-sacrifice, or have earned in other ways a high place in their country's regard; and whether the Scottish Education Department will adopt the same course towards schools in Scotland.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The Department is in full sympathy with the suggestion referred to in the question of the Hon. Member, and would gladly see it adopted where the school authorities thought it expedient.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the following arrangements can be made:—To have one Roman Catholic chaplain to every squadron to minister to the same, either by being stationed on board ship or otherwise, the Roman Catholic chaplain to be on the same footing as regards pay, allowances, and pensions as chaplains of the Established Church: to have a certain number of acting Roman Catholic chaplains where the number of Roman Catholic sailors is large enough to demand their ministrations, as is done in the Army; and to have a Roman Catholic schoolmaster on board every training ship.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The arrangements for religious ministrations to the Roman Catholics in the Meet have been constantly discussed by the Admiralty with representatives of Roman Catholic bodies, and prelates of the Roman Catholic
  372
  Church, and as I have previously stated to the hon. Member for East Mayo, every effort has been made to satisfy legitimate wants in that respect, but the present very large proposals of the hon. Member could not be carried out.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether we are to understand that the Roman Catholic prelates, with whom the right hon. Gentleman discussed those matters, were satisfied?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There were many points on which they were wholly satisfied. We had done our best to come to an arrangement with them, and in the Mediterranean I believe we have fully carried out their wishes.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): Has the right hon. Gentleman come to an arrangement with the prelates?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have said we have on a great many topics. Salaries have been increased in many directions, and many grievances have been remedied. Of course we have not been able to do everything they wish, any more than we could meet the claims of other denominations, but it has been my sincere desire to satisfy all their legitimate claims.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I shall raise this question on the Estimates, and hope the right hon. Gentleman will be then able to give a more detailed account of what has been done.

  NAVAL ENGINEER OFFICERS AND ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  MR. PENN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many engineer officers have joined the Navy from Keyham, and how many from outside sources during the current financial year, and how many engine-room artificers during the same period.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The number of engineer officers who have joined the Navy from the College at Keyham, during the financial year 1899–1900, is thirty-seven; and the number of entered from outside thirteen. In addition to the above thirty chief engine-room artificers have been promoted to the rank of

  373
  artificer engineer. Three hundred and sixty engine-room artificers have been entered up to date.

  BRITISH CENTRAL AFRICA—THE ARMS OF IMPERIAL TROOPS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, seeing that the majority of the imperial troops stationed in the British Central Africa Protectorate are armed with the Snider rifle, will arrangements be made to arm the troops with a more serviceable weapon at an early date; and is there any intention of replacing the old muzzle-loading artillery by guns of a more modern date.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: In British Central Africa there are no Imperial troops who are armed with Snider rifles. Muzzle-loading artillery will, as opportunities occur, be replaced by breech-loading guns.
  MR. WEIR: Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the last Diplomatic and Consular Report, in which it is distinctly stated that the majority of our soldiers in British Central Africa are armed with the Snider rifle?
  [No answer was given.]

  FIRE AT ST. GEORGE'S BARRACKS—PROTECTION FROM FIRE OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a fire, due to a defective flue, recently broke out at St. George's Barracks; whether flues of the same sort exist in the room immediately adjoining the Turner room of the National Gallery; and whether the Government are still convinced that the national collection of pictures stands in no danger of fire from its close proximity to St. George's Barracks.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, a small fire broke out through a soot-door being loose. All soot-doors in the barracks have now been made perfectly secure. Every possible precaution is taken to avoid the danger of fire.

  3RD BATTALION SEAFORTH HIGH-LANDERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the arrangement under which
  374
  part of the staff of the 3rd Battalion Sea-forth Highlanders (Ross-shire Militia) is quartered at Fort George, whilst the rest of the staff is quartered at Dingwall, the regimental depôt, is detrimental to the interests of the regiment; and in view of the fact that there are several sanitary sites at Dingwall on which buildings suitable for the accommodation of the whole of the staff and men might be erected, will he consider the expediency of providing such accommodation.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State sees no reason for altering the decision on the matter already conveyed to the hon. Member on several previous occasions.
  MR. WEIR: Will an inquiry be made into these men's very serious grievances?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is endeavouring in the form of question and answer to raise again a debate on the Military Works Bill which we had last year.*
  MR. WEIR: In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer I shall call attention to this on the Estimates.

  THE MALARIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say when the Report of the Malarial Commission will be issued; and will he state whether Her Majesty's Commissioner has yet advised the establishment of a sanatorium in the Shire Highlands, British Central Africa.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The report is not expected before the close of the year. The question of a sanatorium in the Shire Highlands has not been raised by Her Majesty's Commissioner. There is a hospital at Blantyre of which the Administration will assume control on the 1st of April next, and a staff of nurses paid from Protectorate funds.

  RUSSIAN CONSULATE AT BOMBAY.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an application has been made, and acceded to by Her Majesty's Government, for the establishment of a Russian Consulate General at Bombay;
  "See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxv., p. 573.

  375
  and whether it is proposed to appoint. British Consuls at the principal places in the Caucasus and the Trans-Caspian dominions of Russia.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): In view of an assurance given by Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg in 1876, Her Majesty's Government in August last expressed their readiness to accede to an application from the Russian Government for the establishment of a Russian Consulate at Bombay. Her Majesty's Government stated at the same time that they understood that the Russian Government would be ready to agree to the appointment of a British Consul at Tiflis, should it at any time be found desirable to make such an appointment. No appointment of a Consul at Bombay has yet been notified by the Russian Government, but if such a Consulate is established it will be open to Her Majesty's Government to claim the right of appointing a Consul at Tiflis.

  NYASSA RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will explain the cause of the delay in the construction of the Nyassa Railway, British Central Africa; and will he state whether there is any prospect of the line being constructed at an early date, or at least that portion between Chiromo and Blantyre.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government do not think the present time opportune for undertaking this railway, and they cannot now say when the matter will be further considered, but it will not be lost sight of.

  RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government have received any official notification as to recent movements of Russian troops towards the frontier of Afghanistan; and whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the relations at present existing between the Ameer and this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have received several reports
  376
  indicating an increase in the number of Russian troops stationed in Central Asia. The relations of the Government of India with His Highness the Ameer conform to the terms of our engagements with Afghanistan, and have undergone no change.

  TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  ME. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whose duty it is, at times of snow storms, to clean Trafalgar Square; whether it rests with Her Majesty's Office of Works, or with the parish vestry of St. Martin-in-the-Fields; and whether, when the City and Liberty of Westminster is incorporated, it is proposed to hand over Trafalgar Square to the Corporation.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The cleaning of Trafalgar Square is in the charge of the Office of Works. The answer to the last paragraph of my hon. friend's question is in the negative.
  SIR. KIMBER: Under what authority does the Office of Works claim this, and what steps are taken to do the work
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I am inquiring into the matter at this moment.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY—EXTENSION, AND PROTECTION FROM FIRE.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, seeing that in the Supplementary Estimates provision is asked for the sum of £5,850 for the purchase of certain properties in St. Martin's Street for the National Gallery extension, it is the ultimate intention of Her Majesty's Government to make the National Gallery a detached building; and if so, whether steps will be taken to arrest the progress of rebuilding public houses and other shop properties which must seriously increase demands for compensation when the time shall arrive for their compulsory acquisition.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The acquisition of the property in question removes a source of possible danger from fire, and is intended to meet eventual needs of the National Gallery extension. The National

  377
  Gallery is at the present moment practically a detached building, although connecting screen walls give it the appearance of being in dangerous communication with adjacent buildings. I should like to see a wider space dividing it from St. George's Barracks, and this advantage will be secured when a portion of the barracks shall have been removed on the completion of the new War Department buildings at Chelsea and Millbank, now under construction. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, no property such as is described by my hon. friend would come within the limit of our scheme.

  ST. SIMON AND ST. JUDE'S SCHOOL, SOUTHPORT.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether in St. Simon and St. Judo's Church School, Southport, the practice of recording in the log-book corporal punishment inflicted upon the scholars is (pursuant to the instructions in that behalf of the Education Department to Her Majesty's Inspectors) strictly observed; and whether there is in the log-book of such school a record of any corporal punishment having been inflicted on the 27th October last; and if so, whether he has any objection to furnish a copy of the entries for that day.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): It is not customary at St. Simon and St. Jude's School to record cases of corporal punishment in the logbook. The instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors requiring such a record to lie kept were withdrawn in 1891, and the practice, though it still prevails in some districts, has in others been abandoned. There is no record in the log-book of St. Simon and St. Jude's School of any corporal punishment having been inflicted on the 27th of October last.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER (): I beg to ask the President of the Beard of Agriculture whether, in reference to the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in North Suffolk, and the
  378
  regulations he has issued forbidding the removal of beasts in the prohibited area, he has relaxed this rule in Norwich, Yarmouth, and Lowestoft, by permitting the removal of cattle for immediate slaughter; and, if so, whether he will consider the propriety of extending this to Bungay, Beccles, and Harleston, which are about fourteen miles further from the spot where the outbreak commenced than the towns mentioned.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): My right hon. friend asks me to state that under an order which came into operation on Thursday last, a copy of which he will be happy to supply to my hon. friend, further facilities were afforded for the movement of animals for slaughter, which will, he thinks, adequately meet the necessities of the three towns to which the question refers.
  MR. SOAMES (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now able to grant special licences for the movement of grazing stock from one farm to another within the district scheduled in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. LONG): The representations which have been made to my right hon. friend on the matter to which the Hon. Member refers are being kept in mind, and he hopes it may be possible for him to give some further relief in the direction suggested in the course of a week or so.

  COMPANIES ACT, 1862—TYPEWRITING AND PRINTING.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade by whose direction it is that the Registrar of Joint. Stock Companies declines to receive for registration typewritten special resolutions under Section 53 of the Companies Act, 1M62, which requires that copies of special resolutions intended for filing must be printed; also what legal authority there is for holding that typewriting is not printing, and why printing by the typewriting machines is considered non-compliance with the law.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade are advised that as the Act of Parliament directs that copies of

  379
  certain documents shall be printed, typo-written copies would not be in compliance with the statute, and they have so directed the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies.
  MR. KIMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing typewriting instead of printing?
  MR. RITCHIE: It cannot be done without altering the Act of Parliament.

  MERCHANT SERVICE—FOREIGN CREWS.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British steamers engaging crews in British home ports frequently engage crews composed of seven or eight different nationalities, most of whom are unable to understand or speak the English language; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this, foreigners sign articles of agreement which they are unable to understand; and whether he will cause copies of such agreements to be prepared and kept in each mercantile office in the principal European languages, to be read by foreigners unable to understand the articles of agreement when read over to them in English.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am quite aware that many foreigners are engaged to serve as seamen on British ships, but I am advised that, as a general rule, they appear to have a sufficient knowledge of English to understand the nature of the agreement. The superintendents of the Mercantile Marine offices are instructed to see that the agreement is understood by all who sign it, and, when required, they avail themselves of the services of an interpreter. In these circumstances I do not think it necessary to adopt the suggestion contained in the concluding paragraph of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to appoint a Committee to inquire into this, because I am satisfied—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to asking a question.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I am satisfied that the men do not understand the language.
  [No answer was given.]

  THE "LUCANIA"—CREW ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of firemen and trimmers employed on the steamship "Lucania," owned by the Cunard Company; whether he can state the number of places provided for the use and accommodation of such men; whether he can state the number of cubic-feet of space provided for each man, and whether each man is provided in such places with not less than twelve superficial feet of space, measured on the deck or floor as provided by Section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and whether such places are provided with the means for obtaining sufficient natural light so as to enable the men to read the print of any ordinary newspaper in any part of the space provided for their accommodation.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that the number of seamen and firemen employed on the Cunard steamer "Lucania" is 171. This includes three electricians who sign as firemen. The number of places provided for the use and accommodation of such men is sixteen. The number of cubic feet of space provided for each man is 107, as against seventy-two required by the Act. In fifteen of the spaces rather over the number of superficial feet required by the Act is provided for each man. In the sixteenth space there is a slight deficiency, which will be remedied. I understand that three of the spaces are deficient in natural light, but all are fitted with the electric light under the control of the men themselves.

  POOR LAW RELIEF—CASE OF ESTHER TERRY.
  MR. HAZELL (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an inquest held before Mr. Troutbeck at the St. Clement Danes Vestry Hall on 4th October last upon the body of Mrs. Esther Terry, aged sixty-four; whether he is aware that a day before her death she applied for admission to the Strand Union workhouse, and was told by an assistant clerk that as she had been passed for relief in the parish of Lambeth within the year, she would be liable for prosecution if she accepted relief in the Strand Union; and that at the

  381
  time she was very ill and physically unable to reach Lambeth, and ought to have been at once admitted to the Strand workhouse; whether the clerk acted in accordance with the regulations of the Local Government Board in the matter; and, what steps will be taken to prevent similar refusals of help to the sick poor in future.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board communicated with the guardians of the Strand Union with regard to this case in October last. The facts appear to be as stated in the question, except that the woman made no complaint of illness at the time of her application for relief; she said that she would return to Lambeth and apply for relief in that parish. The guardians state that if she had complained that she was ill her case would have been dealt with immediately without any question as to her place of settlement being considered. In accordance with the practice which prevailed in this union, however, when she applied for relief at the office of the relieving officer, she was in the first instance referred to the clerk, whoso office was in the same building, for inquiry as to her settlement. Had she afterwards returned to the relieving officer an order for her admission to the workhouse would, it is seated, have been given at once. The Board have pointed out to the guardians that the custom of referring applicants for relief to the clerk for inquiries as to their settlement before giving relief is open to serious objection, and that it is the duty of the relieving officer to secure that applicants shall receive as promptly as possible the relief they require; and the guardians in reply have intimated that the practice complained of will be discontinued.

  SCOTTISH DEER FORESTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Crown Agent for Scotland has experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining accurate information in regard to the deer forest acreage in Scotland, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of having the form of return which is headed "Valuation of Lands and Heritages, Scotland," provided with a
  382
  column in which owners or tenants of deer forests will be required to state the name and acreage of each forest in their possession or occupation.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I understand the hon. Member to refer to a form of return which is issued by the assessors under the Valuation Acts in course of the preparation of the Valuation Roll. The form of the Valuation Roll is statutory, and does not include particulars as to acreage. The hon. Member's suggestion would therefore require legislation, which the Government are not prepared to propose. In point of fact the value of a deer forest depends not on its acreage but on the average number of stags allowed to be killed.

  POULTRY BREEDING IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what steps the Congested Districts Board have taken to encourage and improve the breed of poultry in the congested areas of the Highland crofting counties.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: A largo number of sittings of good eggs wore distributed free last year. In the autumn the Congested Districts Board sent an expert to lecture in all the congested districts of Sutherland and Caithness, and they are now endeavouring to make arrangements for the more rapid marketing of eggs as well as for the supply of improved strains.

  GLASGOW POLICE AND SICK PRISONERS.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON (): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Local Government Board has yet considered the change of practice recently introduced in Glasgow in dealing with cases of debility and injury brought to the police offices and subsequently removed to the parochial hospital, whereby pauper patients are removed to that hospital without any certificate from the parochial medical officer of their fitness for removal; whether the criminal authorities have sanctioned the inspection of the private police books by the parochial officers; and whether the removal of a moribund person on the data contained

  383
  in these books, and without certificate from the parochial medical officer, would be held to satisfy the requirements of the Poor Law Act, and on whom, in case of mishap occurring in connection with a removal so conducted, would legal responsibility rest.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that they have inquired and find that a alight change of practice has taken place in regard to cases occurring during the night in the portion of the amalgamated parish, formerly the City parish of Glasgow. These eases used to be removed direct to the poorhouse by cab, etc., by the police, and were admitted without communication with the parochial authorities or a certificate of any kind. Now a telephone message is sent to the Parochial Chambers, and the poorhouse ambulance is used for the conveyance of the person to the poorhouse on the casualty surgeon's written recommendation. Casualty surgeons have been instructed to enter in a book kept by them their opinion whether the patient can be safely removed, and such book is to be available to the inspector of poor or his representatives before removing any patient from the police office to the poorhouse. I may add that the Local Government Board consider this system a great improvement on the previous system, and I see nothing in it contrary to the requirements of the Poor Law Act.

  LONGFORD POSTMEN.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what are the hours of duty of the postmen in Longford; whether a man going on duty at 3 p.m. does not get off till 2 a.m., and has afterwards to be ready for mid-day delivery next day; whether when on duty on Sunday morning up to 2 a.m., and oftener later, he is paid anything extra for his Sunday work; whether an auxiliary postman could be employed to do the night turn delivery, commencing at 8 p.m.; and whether he will generally cause inquiry to be made into the conditions of employment in Longford.
  MR. HANBURY: TWO under eight hours and one of three hours thirty
  384
  minutes. There is no duty such as that described in the second paragraph. The postman who is on duty from midnight on Saturday to 2 a.m. on Sunday receives corresponding time off from midnight on Sunday to 2 a.m. on Monday. If an auxiliary were employed on the last delivery in place of one of the established postmen the average attendance of the two established postmen, who change duties weekly, would be reduced to much less than a full duty, and this would not be warranted. Inquiry will be made whether it may be practicable to readjust the attendance of one of the established postmen in order to give him a longer interval off duty.

  CLONMEL POST OFFICE.
  MR. CONDON (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the negotiations for the purchase of a site for the new post office for Clonniel have been completed; and, if so, when the building operations will begin.
  MR. HANBURY: The purchase of the proposed site for the new office at Clonmel has not yet been completed. The acceptance of the offer was conditional on the vendor arranging to extinguish the adverse rights of light dominating the site; and this as yet he has not been able to do. It is impossible, therefore, to state at present when building operations will begin.

  STRANRAER AND LARNE MAIL ROUTE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory character of the mail service between Belfast and London by the Larneand Stranraer route. Whether it would be possible to arrange for the despatch of mails from Belfast to London by this route so as to allow of the posting of letters in Belfast up to six o'clock. Whether he is aware that the mails by this route almost invariably arrive late in London. And whether he will give a return of the number of occasions in which the Stranraer mail arrived late in London, for the past six months, stating the amount of the delay in each instance.
  MR. HANBURY: Since the last acceleration of the Irish night mail Holyhead, the route viâ Larne and Strauraer has been of little value for correspondence between Belfast and London, though it is of considerable importance for letters from Belfast and the north of Ireland generally for towns in the northern and Midland counties of England. The hon. Member's proposal has already been considered, but it was found that correspondence for the northern and Midland counties which now arrives in time for the first delivery would sustain serious delay, and that although such an alteration would be of advantage as regards letters for London, almost as many letters for other places would be delayed, and that upon the whole such an alteration would not be considered by the public generally as an improvement. The companies who provide for the service have, however, been strongly urged not only to maintain greater punctuality than in the past, but; also to accelerate the service, and the Postmaster General hopes that it will in this way be possible to meet to some extent the wishes of the merchants of Belfast. A statement shall be sent to the hon. Member showing the delay during the last six months.

  SENIOR TELEGRAPHISTS AT E.C.D.O.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Treasury on 1st June, 1899, increased the number of senior telegraphists in the E.C. district; and whether, in view of the great stagnation of promotion, and to the fact that the men affected have performed these extra duties, the Postmaster General will authorise their appointment, and date same from the time the Treasury granted its consent.
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury authority is dated the 7th of June last, and the arrangement to which it applies is not confined to the Eastern Central district only, but extends to the whole London district. It is considered desirable that the whole of the promotions should be made at one time, and the delay has arisen from the necessity for testing the qualifications of some officers
  386
  who were eligible by seniority for the newly-created posts. The promotions will be made as soon as possible, and will take effect from the date on which the several officers began to perform the more responsible duties.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION PETITIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the evidence given at the local government election petitions, as well as the judgments of the Commissioners appointed to try those petitions, was in every case officially reported by a shorthand writer appointed by the judees, whose fees have been paid as part of the official outlay; whether these reports have been supplied and are now filed in the Election Petitions Office of the Four Courts; and whether, having regard to these facts and to the importance of having the judgments collected and issued in one volume, he will reconsider the advisability of issuing them as a Parliamentary Paper; and, if they are not to be so issued, why was the expense gone to of having them reported to be merely filed in the office of the Four Courts.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): A transcript of the notes of evidence taken at the trial of those petitions only accompanies the certificate if the election court so direct. Of five cases tried the notes of evidence were returned in three eases. There is no report of the judgments delivered by the Commissioners. With regard to the third paragraph, I can only repeat what has already been stated by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, that it docs not appear that any useful public purpose would be served by laying on the Table a Paper such as that indicated, and that the Government cannot consent, therefore, to the suggested return.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why is all this expense for shorthand writers' notes gone to?
  MR. ATKINSON: The object is to preserve an authentic record in the event of any further inquiry being needed.

  IRISH PRIMARY EDUCATION SYSTEM.
  MR. POWER (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received copies of resolutions adopted by a branch of the Gaelic League at St. John's College, Waterford, making suggestions which they think should be embodied in the revised code of the primary education system in Ireland with the view of encouraging the study of the Irish language and of Irish history, and what steps the Government intend taking to meet the views of the members of the Gaelic League and of the Irish people on this subject.
  MR. ATKINSON (for MR. G. W. BALFOUR): The resolutions referred to have been received. It has already been stated that it is proposed to carry out a large measure of reform in the system of primary education in Ireland. Pending the explanation of the new scheme as a whole, it is not considered desirable to enter into details of the changes contemplated.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): Would it not be possible to apply the system adopted in Wales to Ireland?
  MR. ATKINSON: [Answer inaudible.]

  IRISH GRAND JURORS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether complaint has been recently made to the Castle as to the difficulty experienced in getting grand jurors to act since the passage of the Local Government Act; i and whether, as there are a number of large ratepayers who are Nationalists in each county available, he will direct the sheriff to summon such jurors in future to servo on grand juries of assize.
  MR. ATKINSON (for MR. G. W. BALFOUR): No difficulty of the kind mentioned was experienced at the Winter Assizes, and none could be experienced at any other, as grand juries will only be assembled at the end of this or the beginning of next month for the first time to discharge criminal business alone. The Executive have no power to dictate to High Sheriffs as to how they
  388
  should discharge their statutory duties in the respect mentioned.

  ANNALY (COUNTY LONGFORD) ESTATE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland can he state the number of tenants on the Annaly (County Longford) estate who have purchased their farms through the Land Commission; whether any applications were refused; and, if so, how many and on what grounds; and whether inquiry will be made from the receiver as to his reasons for not carrying into effect the promises he made to induce tenants to sign undertakings to purchase their farms from him, which undertakings whilst binding the tenants have not been given effect to by the receiver.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have not yet received sufficient information to enable me to reply to this question, and will ask the hon. Member to repeat it to-morrow.

  SIR WILLIAM STYLE'S ESTATE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Sir William Style is now before the Land Commission for sale to the tenants; whether the Commissioners are aware that rights of turbary on this estate are regulated by custom; that the solicitor for the landlord submitted to the Commissioners a draft deed for approval containing terms with reference to turbary which were objected to by the; tenants; and that that deed, though approved by the Commissioners, was afterwards withdrawn; and whether any other draft has since been submitted for the approval of the Commissioners; and, if so, whether they will withhold their sanction until satisfied that the tenants assent to its terms in respect of turbary.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The answers to the first and second paragraphs are in the affirmative. The draft of a second deed, the terms of which with reference to turbary were, I am informed, agreed to by the solicitors acting on behalf of both the landlord and the tenants respectively, has been submitted to and approved of by the Land Commissioners. This deed has not,

  389
  however, been yet lodged with the Commissioners duly executed.

  IRISH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether' it is proposed to introduce any legislation during the present session in connection with the recent report of the Intermediate Education Commission.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): A Bill is being prepared and will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  BOYLE UNION AND THE LABOURERS ACT.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in issuing a Provisional Order in connection with the inquiry under the Labourers Act in Boyle Union; and whether their inspector has explained why he allowed certain occupiers to give verbal consents for sites for cottages, and neglected to have these undertakings perfected in legal manner.
  MR. ATKINSON (for MR. G. W. BALFOUR): As regards the first paragraph, there has been no delay in dealing with the matter. The Boyle (No. 1) District Council asked the Local Government Board to disregard some of the inspector's recommendations and the correspondence which arose in consequence only terminated on the 19th January. With reference to the second paragraph, the inspector, in order to meet the convenience of occupiers of land, recommended in two instances that the alternative sites offered by them should be accepted, subject to the consents of all the persons interested being obtained. As it would obviously be impossible for the inspector to procure these consents during the inquiry, the district council, following the usual practice, were requested to procure them.

  EXAMINERS IN ART.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (): I beg to ask the
  390
  Secretary to the Treasury if it has been finally decided that no pension or 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, wore technically "occasional" officials, and 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. 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.

  COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when ho proposes to nominate the Committee on Municipal Trading, having regard to his statement in the House on the 3rd of July last.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose putting this Committee down again on the Paper without delay.

  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BUILDINGS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what arrangements have been finally concluded between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of India, and the University of London for taking over the Imperial Institute buildings, specifying the apportionment of accommodation in each case and the responsibility undertaken by them for maintaining the structure; and whether he will place upon the Table of the House copies of correspondence regarding the final arrangements made for the future working of the Imperial Institute.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government has taken over the entire building, and will be responsible for external repairs, lighting, and rates. The Indian Government will occupy without rent. (1) Part of the basement at the east end of the main block. (2) The Avebai Bhownagree corridor and certain other ' rooms and passages in the Eastern Annexe. (3) It will have the use, conjointly with the University of London and the Institute, of the Cowasjee Jehanghir Hall, at dates to be arranged between the parties. (4) As regards the exhibition galleries, it will make its own arrangements with the Institute as heretofore. The Institute will occupy, rent tree, the western part of the main block, with many of the galleries. It will have the use, conjointly with the University, of the Great Hall, and, conjointly with the University and the Government of India, of the Cowasjee Jehanghir Hall, at dates to be arranged between the parties. With the above exceptions the building will be occupied, rent free, by the University of London, under an arrangement which will permit of examinations of candidates for the Civil Service being occasionally held there. I am not aware of any correspondence on the subject of the future conduct of the Imperial Institute.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill,
  392
  promised in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, for the Amendment of the Housing of the Working Classes Act will be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that my light hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board will introduce this Bill on Thursday.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER MAN (): I wish to ask the First Lord whether he has any news from the front to communicate to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I do not think that there is any news. Whatever news the War Office obtains which can be published will be placed in the tea-room or some place accessible to Members.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the business of the House for Thursday and Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it will be Supplementary Estimates, but per-haps the right hon. Gentleman will put the question again to-morrow.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember the promise he gave me the other day, that good notice shall be given before the Civil Service Estimates are taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: May I ask the Lord Advocate when the Ecclesiastic Assessments (Scotland) Bill is to be taken. Is it likely to come on tonight?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It rests with the First Lord. I do not think it will be taken without due notice.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Hon. Ivor Churchill Guest, for the Borough of Plymouth.
NEWS BILLS.

  POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES).
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE-RIDLEY,): I venture to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the grant out of the Police Funds of certain allowances and gratuities in respect of Police Reservists who are called out on permanent service. The House will recollect that during the autumn session, when it was stated that the Government were prepared to make allowances to the families of Government servants who were called out as Reservists, I was asked whether something similar would not lie done for the police. I replied that I thought it was right to do so, and that if necessary I would ask for Parliamentary powers to sanction it.
  See The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, vol. lxxvii., page 575.
  Since then I have received representations from local authorities all over the country in favour of powers to grant these allowances, as under the Police Acts they would be illegal, inasmuch as the men are now soldiers and not police. Under these circumstances I ask leave to introduce this Bill, which is partly to legalise what has already been done by the local authorities in the matter and partly to authorise the allowances in the future. The Bill leaves it purely optional to the local authorities to pay the allowances to the Reservists, and T think, therefore, there can hardly be any objection to passing such a measure.
  Bill to authorise the grant out of Police Funds of certain allowances and gratuities in respect of Police Reservists who are called out on permanent service, ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Jesse Collings.

  POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES) BILL.
  "To authorise the grant out of Police Funds of certain allowances and gratuities
  394
  in respect of Police Reservists who are called out on permanent service," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

  LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) SALARIES AND CLERKS.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the number and salaries of the staff of the Lunacy Board for Scotland, and for the remuneration of certain of the Commissioners. I may explain that for a long time past the duties of this department have been increasing, so that the salaries of a number of the staff' are now inadequate. The Treasury have agreed to provide a further sum, but, unfortunately, owing to the provisions of certain statutes the salaries cannot be increased without legislation. The present Bill, therefore, proposes to do no more than legalise what, in ordinary cases, would be done by a Treasury Minute.
  Bill to make further provision for the number and salaries of the staff of the Lunacy Board for Scotland, and for the remuneration of certain of the Commissioners, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.

  LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) SALARIES AND CLERKS BILL.
  "To make further provision for the number and salaries of the staff of the Lunacy Board for Scotland, and for the remuneration of certain of the Commissioners," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon, Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

  CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I beg to ask leave on behalf of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board to introduce a Bill for taking the census for Great Britain in 1901. Perhaps I ought to say that the measure differs in two respects, and in two respects.

  395
  only, from that passed in 1890 for a similar purpose. This Bill applies to Scotland, whereas in 1890 Scotland had a separate Bill for herself. It has, however, been found possible to combine the two measures on this occasion. Under the previous Bill a good deal was done by special enactment which is now done by instruction, and therefore this Bill is a much shorter one than the last.
  MR. LEWIS (): I do not notice in the speech of the hon. Gentleman any appreciation of the fact that the next census will be taken not only at the beginning of a new decade, but also at the beginning of a new century, and that it is desirable that any additional information which it may be considered necessary to have at the beginning of a new century should be obtained under this Bill. In the United States of America most elaborate preparations are being made with a view to the next census. I do not suggest that preparations of the same elaborate and extensive character should be made in this country, but I think it is worth while considering, at such an epoch in our history, whether the scope of the invaluable information which is obtained by means of the census should be so restricted on this occasion as it generally is. It has been argued in the past that the census should be taken quinquennially and not decennially. That has, however, been decided against the quinquennialists. I venture, however to think that on this occasion some extension might be made. I gather from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that one provision in the last Census Bill, which was very greatly approved by hon. Members from Wales, is not to be omitted on this occasion, and that there will be a special census for the principality of Wales. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to this matter, because, on the previous occasion, certain provisions were very inadequately carried out, and I therefore hope that the instructions contained in this Bill will be of a most precise and specific character, so that the causes of complaint may not recur.
  Bill for taking the Census for Great Britain in the year one thousand nine hundred and one, ordered to be brought
  396
  in by Mr. Chaplin, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. T. W. Russell.

  CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
  "For taking the Census for Great Britain in the year one thousand nine hundred and one," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
SUPPLY [15TH FEBRUARY].
Resolution reported:—
SUPPLY [15TH FEBRUARY].
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

    NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    "That a further number of Land Forces, not exceeding 120,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): When this Vote was before the Committee I opposed it on the ground that I had done the same thing last session when a similar Vote was proposed to Parliament, and I considered it only consistent that I should continue and repeat the protest I then made. The speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War in outlining the plan of Army reform was an exceedingly interesting one, and evoked much attention all through the country. I ventured, however, to point out in Committee, and I think this is worthy the attention both of the House and the country, that the measure proposed by the War Office is largely of a permanent character. We are told by the Under Secretary for War that the proposals with regard to the Militia and Volunteers are only for this year, and that they are not in any way of a permanent character. That being so the proposals have not met with much opposition. But what I think does and will attract more opposition is

    397
    the proposition in the scheme of the Government very considerably to increase the permanent army of the country. We are to add something like 30,000 additional troops to the Regular Army—cavalry, infantry, and artillery; and it would lie exceedingly interesting to know what the Hon. Gentleman has left us in complete ignorance of, and that is, how much will be added to the permanent cost of the Army. I have no doubt that, in view of the enthusiasm which now exists by reason of the war, any temporary expenditure for the purposes of it will be endorsed and even welcomed by the people at large. What I think most people who go beyond the needs of the moment want to know is, by how much the Army Estimates are to be permanently increased through the addition of 30,000 men to the Army. I do not know whether the calculation that I have made is correct, but my estimate is that this addition to the Regular Army will mean at least a million of money a year on the Army Estimates of the future. That, I think, is an exceedingly serious matter. I ventured to criticise during the Committee stage the proposals of the Government with reference to the Volunteers and the Militia, and I am bound to say the opinion I then expressed with regard to them is the opinion I have seen in the public press, and one which I have heard in this House over and over again. Several hon. and gallant Gentlemen, the name of whose constituency I do not remember for the moment, spoke on this subject, and expressed the opinion that it would not be possible to get the Volunteers of this country to leave their business and their work to come out under canvas for a month. I believe that is true, and I think tills scheme will break down. The Under Secretary of State for War said that before these proposals were made a great number of commanding officers of the Volunteer regiments had been communicated with, and they supported the scheme of bringing their battalions under canvas for a month in each year. Well, I have no doubt that a great many of the officers would lie prepared to go out for a month with their men, but I do not think there is a man present in this House now who would fail to agree with me that it would be absolutely impossible to get anything like a large proportion of the rank and file of the Volunteers in this
    398
    country to leave their employment for a whole month in order to devote themselves exclusively to military training. Such a condition distinctly alters the terms upon which they volunteered. It is one thing for a man to join a volunteer corps and go away for a few days at Easter, and to come up for a few hours every Saturday and drill and go for a short march; but when you tell those men that they are expected to go out not for a day or two at Easter and a few hours on a Saturday, but for a solid month under canvas, they will tell you that it is absolutely impossible. We may be told that the men who employ Volunteers will do everything they can to enable these men to come out for a month; but no matter how willing-they may be, it will be impossible for them to allow their employees to come under canvas for a month, first of all; and, in the second place, if they do, it will be impossible to keep open their position for the month they are away. It is a thing that cannot be done, and will not be done. With regard to the Militia the objections appear to me to be very: much the same, but in a more aggravated form. In the country the men who enter the Militia are agricultural labourers or men in small positions-connected with farming operations; in the towns they are engaged in factories and workshops and so on. Then how is it to be expected that these men are to come out for three or four months and learn to do the actual work of a soldier? Who is to do their work while they train; and who is to guarantee that their places shall be kept for them? Both the schemes in my opinion are foredoomed to failure, and neither of them is in any sense calculated to meet the difficulties with which the Government are confronted at the present time. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War appeared to me to make his case so much the worse when, in answer to an objection made by a greater man than myself, he said the proposals for the three or four months continuous drill for the Militia and the one month for the Volunteers were for this year only. That does not appear to me to meet the objection at all. The fact that they have to go out and so throw themselves, for a time, out of employment, and the fact that it is a scheme for only this year makes the proposal still worse; and the proposal itself almost touches the

    399
    fringe of conscription. I am not interested to speak of this from a military point of view, because I have no regard to the military institutions of this country; but I venture to say that on the day you start conscription in this country you will have an uprising of the people which will surprise you. If you do not have a revolution you will have something very like it. If the Government introduces conscription, they will do what no other: Government has ever dared to do—but they dare not do it. This Government: says "We will ask the Volunteers to come out for a month and the Militia for three or four months," but, on the other hand, they put the request in such a way that the men are bound to accede to it. From our point of view this scheme is a miserable and a makeshift scheme. And so far as the Regular Army is concerned, when the people of this country realise that this war has landed them into a large expenditure of money, and the loss of a great many of their best soldiers, and a large increase in the strength of the British Army, they will condemn the war in the strongest possible terms, and the Government which led them into it. If the policy of this Government and of this country, in the future, is to be to send hundreds of thousands of men from one end of the world to the other, to enforce on the inhabitants of one part of the Empire the will of this country for the time being, the proposals now put forward are altogether inadequate. You will have to have an army three times as large as at present. You will have to have a far greater number of men than the 30,000 you have put down. I have put down a question to be asked of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War, but perhaps he may be able to give the answer to night and save further trouble. I want to know from him if ho will give the House the exact number of the Imperial and colonial troops under arms in Smith Africa at the present moment, the troops that are under orders for South Africa, and the troops that are on their way to South Africa, as well as those it is intended to send out. I want to get at the exact figure, and I would like to have the number of the colonial troops and the number of the Imperial troops separately given. It will be found, I believe, that there are considerably over 200,000 troops under arms at the present
    400
    time in South Africa. Twelve months ago, or even six months ago, would any man hi the United Kingdom have ventured to predict, even in his wildest moments, that at this time close on a quarter of a million of British troops would have been poured into South Africa to engage in a war with these two small Republics? Such a thing has never occurred in the whole history of the British Empire before. I venture to say—and those who are so much in favour of Imperial expansion should take it to heart—that the British Empire will never be maintained by the policy which is now being practised in South Africa of sending hundred of thousands of troops across the sea. I say that in this present proposal to increase your Army, there is an ominous indication that the old policy of self-government as a means of keeping your Empire together is to be abandoned, and that instead of the goodwill of the people throughout the Empire being maintained by the spirit of fair play and consideration and conciliation, you are going to try and build your Empire up in every part of the world by the sword. So surely as you continue that policy, so surely it will fail. From the point of view even of your own Imperialistic ideas, I say this policy is altogether futile and altogether bad. The First Lord of the Treasury the other day, in the course of a speech dealing with the question as to whether these men are necessary, and as to whether the circumstances in South Africa warrant an increase in the Army, said that no question of Imperial expansion had led to the present troubles in South Africa, and he challenged any Member of the House to point out—outside the case of Egypt—where anything had been done by the Government in the nature of expanding the British Empire. I was utterly astonished when I heard that speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Why, who for a moment can deny that but for the wild and reckless expansion of the British Empire incurred by the schemes of Mr. Rhodes you would never have had these troubles in South Africa? The right hon. Gentleman said that if Rhodesia had never been heard of the Dutch and the English might have had differences and come into collision. No doubt that is possible, because all the century the Dutch and the English have been more or less in collision in South Africa. What immediately led to this wretched war was

    401
    the organisation from Rhodesia of the raid by Dr. Jameson, which failed. If you had had no Rhodesia you would have had no buccaneering expedition under Dr. Jameson from Mafeking; and if you had had no expedition from Mafeking you would never have had this war; or if you did come into collision with the Dutch in South Africa you would not have been let in for a war of a serious nature, because everybody knows that until the date of the raid the Boers, from a military point of view, were only a power that you could have easily overcome with 10,000 or 15,000 men, or, at the outside, 20,000 men. It is perfectly established that it was only from that date that the Transvaal became a military Power. So weak, so badly prepared was the Transvaal as a military Power at the date of the raid that Dr. Jameson rode in with 600 men thinking that was a sufficient force. Would that have been done if the Transvaal was a strong military Power—if they had had the armaments they now have? From the date of the raid they commenced arming. From then down to the declaration of war absolutely nothing was done by the Transvaal except to pour arms and ammunition into their territory, and to build fortifications round Pretoria and everywhere else. But for the raid, the chances are there never would have been a war. I do not know really what the object of the Government in this matter was, but their policy was either extremely stupid or else most extraordinarily generous. It reminds me of two people going to have a duel with swords. One man for some reason or another has not got a suitable weapon, and his opponent turns to him and says, "I will wait until you are ready; get as good a weapon as mine; make preparations to be on level terms with me, and then I will fight." That is what the Government seem to have done with the Transvaal. For four years they waited until the Transvaal armed itself, and when that had been done they brought about this war. And yet nobody can claim that the grievances which existed at the time of the Jameson raid had become more accentuated afterwards. Every grievance existed just as markedly at the time of the Jameson raid, and yet at the time the Government took no action to redress those grievances or to compel the Transvaal to come to terms. If these grievances
    402
    were genuine, that is the time the Government should have acted. The Government would have had some reason for objecting to the Transvaal arming themselves. It allowed them to arm. The Prime Minister said in another place, how was he to know what the Transvaal was doing when the cases containing the ammunition were concealed and the guns were smuggled in as agricultural machinery? Was anything so ridiculously silly ever heard from any man in the position of the Prime Minister of England? Was it not common knowledge that the Transvaal was arming to the teeth? Did not we know that for the twelve months succeeding the Jameson raid—that is, the whole of the year 1896—the great armoury factories of Birmingham were pouring millions upon millions of cartridges into the Transvaal? What for? Why was that allowed? If you thought the Transvaal was not treating your subjects fairly why did not you make representations at that time before the Transvaal was fully armed? You made no representations then, and I say that what you are criminally responsible for is for allowing the Boers to arm themselves as they did. These Birmingham firms were challenged as to whether it was not the fact that they were supplying millions of cartridges to the Boers, and they admitted it their only defence was that they did not supply cartridges after 1896. I believe that was true. But this went on for the whole of 1896. It was only at the end of that year that alarm was taken at this extensive arming and at these Birmingham firms exporting the enormous quantities of ammunition they did. The whole course of events which has led up to this disastrous war displays an amount of criminal stupidity on the part of members of the Government which has never been equalled in this country or in the world. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, of course, does not agree with that. I do not wish to be discourteous in any way to him personally, but I will say the feeling towards the whole Cabinet, and more particularly towards him, is one of profound pity and sadness that men of his class have allowed themselves to be dragged into the present wretched state of affairs by the Colonial Secretary, who, whatever else he may be or may have been, is certainly not

    403
    in any sense fit to he the legitimate leader of the Unionists, much less of the Conservative party of this country. I say the conduct of the Government in not taking action to redress the grievances at the time of the raid, or—if they did not think that an opportune time—their action in allowing the Transvaal four years to arm, has rarely been equalled in the matter of stupidity by any Government in the history of the world. If action had been taken at that time trouble would have been saved. The Boers might have met you more generously. But even if they had not met you, then, with a comparatively small force of men, you would have been able to do what it is doubtful whether you are able to do now, although you have put such an enormous force into the field. These circumstances arise in the mind of every hon. Member when he is asked to vote for an increase of 120,000 men to the British Army. The other night when £13,000,000 of money were voted in a very few hours towards the expenses of this war, and towards the expenses of this increase of the Army, I could hardly help reflecting how strange it was that there did not seem to be a single British representative with sufficient public spirit to get up and suggest even remotely that this money might be better spent. I read in this morning's newspaper a case in the City of Dublin where a young man was picked up in a fainting condition, and on being conveyed to the hospital expired, and a post-mortem examination which was subsequently held showed that he died of sheer starvation. Cases of that kind occur in Dublin frequently, and it is impossible for any man to walk through the length and breadth of this great city without seeing the wretched misery and heart-breaking poverty which is everywhere exhibited, and without seeing how much suffering is endured on every hand, simply for the want of a judicious expenditure of small sums of money. Hon. Members come down to this House at three o'clock, and in the course of five hours they vote away millions upon millions of the money of the people of this country, not to forward any scheme to better the condition of the masses and alleviate the misery and sorrow that is everywhere apparent throughout all our large cities, and every part of the country, but simply to vote this money to continue the
    404
    shedding of the blood of brave men, English, Irish, and Scotch alike; this money is being spent to bring untold misery to their friends and relations throughout the length and breadth of South Africa and the British Isles; and to me there is something so utterly revolting in the expenditure of money like this under the circumstances in which we live, that if I were by myself in the House of Commons, and mine was the only voice to be raised against it, I would speak and vote against this proposal even if I did not get a single Member of the House to follow me. We are told that public opinion is on the side of the war. We are told that whenever a meeting is organised to protest against this expenditure the meeting is always broken up. No doubt it is: no doubt the supporters of the Government can always command sufficient influence upon a question of this character to interfere with those who express their opinions against the war. But whatever may take place in this country, in Ireland at least public opinion is free. The people of Ireland are against this war, and they have no sympathy with the objects of the war, and it makes them indignant to think that they may be called upon to bear a large proportion of the cost of this war, when they are already so unfairly taxed, and when in Ireland so much is neglected that might be done there. The Under Secretary for War, deep down in his heart, must see that whether he considers we are right or wrong, the protest made from Ireland is not unnatural. I know districts in my own constituency where I the people for the want of that help which the Government should give, and for the want of that money which is freely given in other portions of the Empire, are suffering considerably. In my own district we had to complain of what was done in regard to the fisheries, and we asked for the presence of one of your small cruisers to protect this industry, but the First Lord of the Admiralty said we could not use warships for such a purpose. We cannot get a penny for anything in Ireland, we cannot get even the university which the First Lord of the Treasury is in favour of, because the money to endow it will not be given. We are asked to vote this money for the prosecution of a war which we detest. If English Members are so sensible to the feelings of their constituencies that

    405
    they won't protest against this war, then I say that, for the time being, the Irish representatives are giving voice to the opinions of large masses of the working people of this country who are against this war. I believe when this miserable war is over that the masses of the English people will honour the Irish Members for being practically the only considerable body of men in this House who, in the face of the misery and suffering that exists throughout the country, object to this wanton, wretched, and extravagant expenditure of public treasure upon an unworthy object. Here we are at the end of the nineteenth century, which has seen such mighty advances in regard to humanity and inventions in every direction, engaged in as ferocious, as bloody, and as un-Christian a war as ever this country, or any other country, engaged in. It is an outrage in a Christian land and an outrage upon a Christian country; and what makes it more sad to contemplate is that your forces and your guns are turned against a people who are as strictly, if not more strictly, attached to the word of God and the Christian Church than you are yourselves. What effect can this spectacle of two great Christian countries attacking each other have upon the Native races? If there was no other consideration to be urged, I say that the example you are setting to the Native races would be consideration enough to make you pause. What do you think the Native races will think of these proceedings? Do you not think that they will not, sooner or later, break from the bonds which now hold them, and probably overrun not only your own possessions but the Transvaal as well?—and then you will have a Christian race fighting for their lives against the savages whose cause you now pretend to be fighting for. I feel that it is almost useless to speak any further on this subject. I have never spoken in this House with more sincerity and with more pleasure than I have done in my protest against this war. I say this war could have been avoided with ordinary conciliation and diplomacy, and above all it could have been avoided if you had adhered to the doctrine which you preached at the Hague where you agreed to arbitration. What a farce and mockery of international good faith that was! You agree to arbitration, and when these two
    406
    small Republics offer it you refuse it. Does it mean you are never to arbitrate unless the Power you arbitrate with is stronger than yourselves? If the Uitlanders in the Transvaal have suffered grievances the Uitlanders of other countries have suffered as well. Any court of arbitration would have done justice between you and your subjects there, and yet you refused arbitration and drove those two unfortunate countries into a position in which they were obliged to fight for their lives, and you have led this country to sacrifices and losses which are irreparable—because no victories can atone for the enormous amount of suffering that has been caused all over the country. With regard to the conduct of Irish Members we sometimes hear—the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War himself said it, although I am sure that he did not intend to be personally offensive to us—that there are other Irishmen who do more than talk. The hon. Gentleman said there are Irishmen in South Africa who are giving their lives and shedding their blood for this country. It is perfectly true that there are Irishmen in South Africa fighting as gallantly as Irishmen always have done in ever part of the world. These men we consider are in the wrong. We consider that it is a cruel shame to see such magnificent gallantly wasted in such a war. We believe that these men, under better circumstances, would never lend their sanction to this war; but being engaged in it we hold that their gallantry and bravery ought not to be made a matter of taunt to us, because we are as proud of it as any other people. That is no reason why we should not object to the war, and to the circumstances which have led to the loss of their blood. Who are these Irish soldiers who comprise the Connaught Rangers, the Dublin Fusiliers, and the rest of the Irish regiments? They come mostly from the South of Ireland; the)' are Catholics by religion, and in politics they are Nationalists and Homo Rulers like we are. I have myself heard these gallant and brave men cheering at Irish meetings and demonstrations, and cheering Members sitting upon these benches in the towns which they have visited. You must not imagine because these men have entered your Army that they are not in sympathy with us, because they are, and we have the sympathy also of the classes in

    407
    Ireland who supply these men, for if we had not we should never have the right to come here and speak against this war and the system under which our country is governed. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War is a Minister in this House who commands universal respect for the way in which he conducts public business. He is always very courteous and kind to those who, like myself, pitch into him occasionally, but even if the hon. Gentleman opposite was not so courteous to us as he is, even if he treated us badly, I do not think there is any Member on these benches who would not entertain for him what we call in Ireland "gra," which betokens a good; deal of respect. The hon. Gentleman's grandfather was one of the noblest Irish rebels who ever lived, for he was a man whose name is honoured in Ireland by the masses of the people, and his portrait is to be found in every cabin home in Ireland, for he fought bravely against the foes of his country. He sacrificed his life fighting against what he believed to be an unjust war, and he died from wounds in Dublin separated from his friends and kindred relations. Lord Edward Fitzgerald held the opinions we hold to-day with regard to the government of Ireland. It is from the life and sentiment of the grandfather of the hon. Gentleman opposite that we and the young generation of Irishmen who follow us have received our inspiration and our determination to object to the present system of rule in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman does not take the same view as his ancestor, but at least he will extend to those who are true to the teaching and life of his illustrious ancestor the respect which I am sure he feels himself for the memory of that ancestor. I will say no more upon this subject except to protest from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of Ireland and also on behalf of those in England who seem to have few statesmen here to represent their views, that the object of this war is cruel, unnecessary, and unjust, and I object to the wanton expenditure of millions of money as un-Christian and infamous when we see around us so much misery and suffering amongst our own countrymen which ought to be relieved and alleviated before we spend these vast treasures in trying to bring into subjection a people who are not of our own race or blood, but who are worthy of our respect and esteem, be-
    408
    cause whether you beat them or do not beat them, they are fine fighting men and you must respect them.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (): I wish to record the hearty appreciation I feel at the excellent plans which the Under Secretary for War has put before the House. I feel sure that the provisions made will encourage the Volunteers, and I am confident will induce many others to join that admirable force so well calculated to defend our country. So far as I can see, the dissatisfaction of the nation and the wrath which consumed it has been appeased by the knowledge that the War Office has done far more than the people knew. It has proved itself to be an efficient machine, and far better handled than any of us imagined. There is one point, however, to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, and that is, the delay which appears to take place in getting our troops away on board ship. Surely it cannot be a question of getting ships, having regard to the loyalty displayed by all shipowners—surely it would not have been difficult to commandeer any ships in the Thames or Mersey to transport any number of men and horses in a fortnight. But I take it that it was not the want of ships which has hampered us. We naturally know-that guns and the thousand and one things which are necessary to make an army an offensive and defensive factor must be taken into account. Now, having heard what the Secretary of War has stated, I think we are satisfied that the War Office has done its utmost to meet the severe strain put upon it. Having read of the difficulties of transport in the field, it has occurred to me that it is a pity that more traction engines are not used; and when we read of the capture of our guns by the enemy, owing, admittedly, to the fact that they were lost in consequence of the mules and other classes of teams being shot down, it appears to me that if these guns had been drawn by their own motors or traction engines, duly armoured, this mishap might perhaps have been avoided. Besides, I often notice the immense difficulties our officers have in mounting guns on steep hills and in difficult places. It will be conceded that, by means of strong steel rope and a large pulley fastened and secured by anchor at the top of a hill, a

    409
    traction engine could be used, either by winding up or going backwards, to haul up the largest of guns into positions where no teams or manual labour would have a chance; and it would not expose the men or the animals to be picked off, thereby endangering the success of the attempt. No rock, however precipitous, could not thereby be mounted by the gun; and, having regard to the difficulties of this campaign, I hold that we must be ready by every ingenuity at our command to deal with the exigencies. It will be found that Continental Powers are using a number of motor cars, traction engines, and the like, and it will be seen that an enormous economy of fodder and the like is accomplished, and that a greater propelling power is generated by crude petroleum or petrol than by any other means. I certainly think that an experiment on these lines might well commend itself to the Under Secretary for War. It is generally conceded that conscription would lie inadvisable in this country, and that the feelings of the nation would be outraged if men were compelled to serve in our colonies to defend the homes of others; whereas on the Continent conscription is really meant to be a force to defend the individual homes of those who take up arms. But no one who has travelled can help noticing the amount of physical development and good which service in the army imparts to those who have served—the muscles are developed, the form improved, and an erect carriage is ensured in future life. Well, Sir, this is a desirable result, and I think from that point of view that conscription is good. Now, I trust that physical training (if some kind will be introduced in this country, and that the Education Department will introduce into all the elementary schools a system of drill, in which all boys will be compelled to take part, and that these exercises should lie under the control of proper drill sergeants appointed for the purpose; that cadet corps should be encouraged; and if found necessary, that even shooting galleries might be introduced, in order to enable the youths of this country to shoot, and to know how to drill whenever they should be called upon to do so. I know from personal experience how splendid these exercises are. They are not easily forgotten, and I feel sure they would be the
    410
    means of developing the physique of the nation, and would foster a feeling of ardour, patriotism, and enthusiasm which would be evoked whenever the country was menaced and in danger; and I feel sure would be the moans of sowing seeds of a martial character which would be the best recruiting factor ever introduced. In conclusion, Sir, I wish to say that I hold that this war is not actuated, as depicted on the other side, by a feeling of greed or annexation, but that the true factor is that this is a fight for freedom and liberty.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): There is one matter in the speech of the Secretary for War in which I entirely agree, and that is where he expressed a firm intention on the part of the Government that our Army should be converted into a purely business Army. That has been the greatest defect in the past. The courage of our soldiers, particularly of our officers, has been unquestionable; but this war has demonstrated that the military knowledge possessed by many of our officers is very deficient indeed, and that is more noticeable in connection with what are called our "crack" regiments, and especially our cavalry regiments. The complaint is a reasonable one, for, as has already been pointed out, these regiments appeal to be the appanage of a few wealthy men who put their sons in those regiments with the view of improving their social status. That seems to me to be an absolutely false view to take of the Army, and I have been informed on good authority that with respect to regiments of this kind, commanding officers have difficulty in getting their officers to devote the proper time to the duties of their profession. Practically the spare time of those officers, instead of being devoted to their duties, is given up to polo and such games. That ought not to be the case, and officers who have attempted to remedy this defect have not received the support from headquarters that they ought to have done. I submit that in all regiments the standard of living should be within the means of the soldier who has only his pay to depend upon, but the complaint is that in several regiments the officers are mostly men with private means amounting to about £600 a year. The course of this war indicates very strongly the need for this

    411
    reform. As an illustration, I may mention the first disaster that befell our arms, by which a large number of the 18th Hussars were taken prisoners at the battle of Glencoe. I have seen published in the newspapers last week a letter from a Boer soldier, who was one of a number that effected that capture. I cannot help believing that the account given by him must be to some extent exaggerated, because if it is anything like true it exhibits the most deplorable ignorance on the part of the officers who allowed themselves to be captured. The account this Boer gives is that a regiment of 300 Hussars were turned by him and one other man; that these two were afterwards reinforced by fifteen others, and the whole of the Hussars were brought to a standstill; that reinforcements to the number of eighty and one gun afterwards came up, when the Hussars hoisted the white flag. The writer assorts that fifteen Boers kept these Hussars at a standstill for an hour. Of course the courage of our officers generally is unquestionable, but they have shown a great lack of militant knowledge. I would urge on the hon. Gentleman if he desires that our Army should be a business army and not an army of pleasure, that the rule which obtains on the Continent that officers as well as privates should wear their uniforms at all times should be adopted. It should be the invariable rule in the Army that, whether on or off duty, in public or in private, all officers should be obliged to wear their uniforms. That would bring home to them that their first duty, and not only their first but their main and principal duty, is to the Army and not to pleasure. I cannot myself approve of the action of the Government in respect to the Volunteers and the Militia. I think it is a deplorable precedent to set to obtain by means of pressure—and I think rather unworthy pressure—enlistments from the Volunteers and Militia for foreign service. These branches of the service—more particularly the Volunteers—were enrolled for homo defence, and pressure should not have been put upon them to induce them to enlist for foreign service. It will have a tendency to dissuade a most valuable class of recruit from joining these branches, which, as a result, will have to depend on the idle and loafing class, who have the time and the inclination to go abroad. What is
    412
    wanted, in my view, to strengthen the Volunteers and the Militia is a different class altogether, viz., well-to-do artisans and clerks in permanent employment, not a floating population of ne'er-do-weels who merely enlist for a change. If whenever a war breaks out in any part of the world pressure is to be brought to. bear on Volunteers to induce them to go abroad it will have a strong tendency to prevent a suitable class from enlisting. I wish to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the kind of pressure which is being put on Volunteers in this country. Here is a notice published by Captain Allard, the officer commanding the loyal Welsh Fusiliers, calling his corps together for the purpose of ascertaining how many would volunteer for the war—
    "Special Orders.—War! War!—The authorities have called upon the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers for voluntary service in South Africa or for garrison national defence duty. With reference to above be it notified to all members of the G Company, 3rd Volunteer Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers that a parade will be held in the Drill Hall on Wednesday night, at nine o'clock, in plain clothes, when it is hoped that every man will be present whose name is on the roll to signify which of the above services he is willing to perform. It must be borne in mind that a man absenting himself from this parade must be branded as a coward. Every man must answer to the call to arms for national defence. Fall in, every man—95 in. strength—to answer this call, and let Llanrwst be to the front in this emergency. Remember, this is trusting our citizen army to the backbone."
    I say that if men who have duties in I connection with their own occupations to attend to are to be branded as cowards, as these men would be branded if they did not volunteer for the purpose of national defence, then respectable steady working men, artisans and clerks, will not join the Volunteers. I thought at the time that the sudden call on the Volunteers and Militia was really an indication of panic on the part of the I Government, because it was made on the Monday following the news of the defeat i at Colenso, the third of a series of defeats that occurred in one deplorable week. It seemed to me that the Government had to some extent lost their heads, but I am afraid there was a political motive behind that summons to the Volunteers and Militia. It had at any rate a political effect, and I am not sure that it was not a design on the part of the Government to

    413
    distract the attention of the country from the grave disasters which had occurred by starting a new excitement in every district and town and almost in every village throughout the country. That excitement did distract the attention of the country, but sending a large number of half or quarter-trained men from the Militia, the Volunteers, and the Yeomanry to South Africa cannot really assist the troops there. You have to face the ablest enemy England has faced for generations, an enemy which has tested the strength and ability of our ablest and most experienced troops, and to send out half-trained troops to our army is really rather an encumbrance than otherwise. I noticed also that a similar opinion was expressed in the press by several military critics, evidently military men, shortly after the order was issued. But I do not base my opposition to the Vote on these matters. My opposition is based on the fundamental ground that the continuance of the war is absolutely unjust, that the war was unjust ab initio, and that to continue it is unjust. I am unable to appreciate the position taken up by many of my hon. friends on these benches. A great number of Liberals admit that the war is unjust, and in its origin absolutely indefensible, not only through the bad diplomacy which led to it, bat also in the prosecution of objects which we had only the right to proscute by friendly representations. That is the opinion almost universally entertained by the Liberal party, with perhaps the exception of about a dozen members. But if the war were unjust at the beginning, it seems to me to be unjust to continue it. The suggestion is that having started the war, we must go through with it because of the necessity of maintaining our prestige. I say if this war is to be continued for the purpose of maintaining our prestige, it is absolutely immoral, and that it is a crime to sacrifice a single life for the purpose of maintaining our prestige. It is now impossible to maintain it: it is gone so far as our military prestige is concerned, and your only object now is to attempt to recover it. You may succeed—indeed, I have no doubt that you will ultimately succeed—in this war; but you will not recover your prestige. The resources of the Transvaal and the Free State are limited; you have unlimited resources in your overwhelming
    414
    numbers and unlimited wealth, in the command of the sea and in your ability to buy your stores in Australia, South America, Germany, and other parts of the world—although you get into a fever of excitement if you hear of a gun being introduced in a piano case into Lorenzo Marques—and it is out by crashing the Transvaal that you can recover your prestige. You have lost something more than your military prestige; you have lost something more valuable from a purely utilitarian point of view to this country, and that is your moral prestige. You may recover your military prestige but you cannot recover your moral prestige. This war is the result of a breach of faith; it is because we have broken our word, and every war England has waged for the last ton years has arisen from the same cause. Are all remember the gross breach of faith in connection with the Terai campaign.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing that.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I do not intend to argue it, Sir, but I merely quote it as an illustration. It is unquestionable that the war arose entirely from a breach of faith. Then with regard to Egypt, no less than four Ministries—Liberal as well as Conservative—pledged themselves to retire from Egypt. The breach of the pledge was followed by the recent war in the Soudan, and it is a breach of faith that has also led to the present war. If the Government would only realise that it is more important that the word of England should always be regarded as reliable and not to be altered with circumstances, and would endeavour to recover our moral rather than our military prestige, I believe they would do more for the security of this country and our colonies than by any plan of reorganisation they can ever accomplish. We know and admit that the condemnation of England's breach of faith in respect of this war is universal among other nations. Hon. Gentlemen opposite endeavour to console themselves with the idea that that condemnation arises only from envy. I quite recognise that there is on the Continent a low, base opinion similar to that which exists in England, and that the jingo, whether in this country or in Berlin or Paris, is always actuated by the lowest and basest

    415
    motives. As far as the Berlin and the Parisian jingoes are concerned I am quite willing to acknowledge that their condemnation of England is based solely and entirely on envy, but neither in this country nor in any other civilised country are the jingoes representative of the nation. They form a minority, but the professional and educated men and the honest working men, who are in a majority in every nation, universally condemn your policy in connection with this war. The only support given to this country on the Continent comes from Hungary, Greece, and Italy. When you examine the basis of that claim it comes to this, that the Hungarians have a feeling of gratitude to England, because through the influence of the Liberals, not the jingo Conservative party, we supported them in their struggles for liberty. The Italians have a feeling of gratitude, but that is also given to that section of the Liberal party which is opposed to this war. And so it is in the case of Greece. We are still taunted on this side of the House because a hundred of our Members sent an address of sympathy with the Greeks. Yes, but the sympathy of the Greeks with England at the present moment is due to those hundred Members of the Liberal party who supported them in their day of trial. These are the only sections of the civilised world who support you, but they do so under the misapprehension that it was you who supported them; so that, tried on your own merits, you have not a single friend in the civilised world. It has often been said that this war is due to the Majuba policy. It is not due to that policy, but to the abandonment of it. No sooner had Mr. Gladstone retired, at any rate no sooner was he dead, than certain leading members of the Liberal party turned their backs on the whole teaching of that great Liberal statesman's life, and cheered the jingo Conservative party to the echo. They took the credit of the Soudan War, and if this war turns out successful they will be equally ready to take credit for it. If Mr. Gladstone had been in office, or had been living with his faculties unimpaired, there is not a man living who believes for a moment that this war would have been entered upon, or that there would have been the slightest danger to our position in South Africa. But when that policy is reversed do you expect to recover the
    416
    fruits of that policy? If you plant a tree and cut it down, do you expect togather fruit from it? The plan you have adopted has only brought maleficent fruit. The policy that resulted in this war is on the shoulders of the Government and particularly on those of the Colonial Secretary. I do not believe that if the Colonial Secretary had been in any other position in the Government, and if Colonial questions, particularly the Transvaal question, had been under the control of the Foreign Office, we would have had war. But unfortunately the Colonial Secretary has allied himself with astute capitalists in South Africa, and under some mysterious influence they were able to control him. That is why we are at war. It is due to the introduction of the capitalist element and the Tammany system into politics in this country. It is a curious thing that it is to the aristocracy of England that we are indebted for the introduction here of the cursed Tammany system, and the sooner the better nature of Great Britain reasserts itself and vomits this evil out of the conduct of the affairs of this country the better it will be.
    *MR. H. P. PEASE (): I wish to say a few words in regard to this Vote. I have little knowledge in regard to military matters, but I may, perhaps, crave the indulgence of the House as I have a considerable amount of knowledge of the working men of the country, having been in touch with them for a number of years. There appear to me to be three classes in this House who criticise adversely this Vote—those who-believe that all war is wrong, who believe that this Vote will increase the spirit of militarism in the country, and believe that war is opposed to Christianity. With these honourable Members I think everyone must feel some sympathy, but they sometimes forget that there comes from the same source as Christianity itself the assurance that "when the strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." The second class are those who believe the proposals of the Government are either inadequate or impossible. It was suggested the other day that it would be right for us to hold an inquiry into the conduct of the war, but it surely would not be wise to institute such an inquiry at the present moment.

    417
    During the Crimean War an inquiry was I hold while the fighting was proceeding, but it was of no use whatever, because a great many of the witnesses whose evidence was material to the Commission were absent. In regard to the proposals of the Government for men and money, I should like to say a word or two. The policy of conscription, in my opinion, ought not to receive any support. The money question is very difficult, for in many cases the people of this country will not lie inclined to give very large sums towards increasing the military; armaments at the present moment. Some hon. Members suggested that it would I not be a difficult matter to get the men, but I beg to differ. I venture to think there will be considerable difficulty in getting a large number of men by invitation. I believe, however, as has been suggested to me by friends in the north of England, that a large number of men could be procured who are able to fight and shoot in the interests of England, if rifle clubs were encouraged; and I hope that the Government will do something material in that direction. I propose that a considerable number of medals should be given every year by which the best class of men might be attracted into the rifle clubs, and that a retaining fee should be given to the best shots. The other class of opponents of the Government proposals is composed of the Irish Members, it seems to me perfectly absurd that we should listen to talk from these hon. Members about increasing the efficiency of the Army when we know that they wish it to be inefficient. It makes us ridiculous in the eyes of the world that we should have to listen to an hon. Member telling us what we should do to make our Army efficient, when only throe days before the same hon. Member said he hoped that we should be beaten in every war we should engage in, in every part of the globe. And then he talked to us about Majuba Hill—that incident which everybody admits cast a shadow on a page of our military history, and about which we do not care to hear from hon. Members from Ireland in this House. I venture to think they would not be able to express these views in any village hall in England or in any hall in London. We know what these hon. Members mean when they ask us to make an immediate peace. What they desire is that the}' should see the end of the British Empire.
    MR. AUSTIN ()said that the Irish Members were glad of the opportunity of raising their voices against this Vote, but he did so on different grounds from some of his hon. friends. He looked upon this question from a civil point of view, and ho asked himself what was to be produced by the war. The answer was a permanent tax on the country. What was the policy which had caused that permanent tax? They were told that the war had been brought about by the Boers not paying attention to the grievances of the Uitlandors. The Boers, were an ignorant people, but at least it was recognised that they were a Christian people, and professed the same religion as the people in this country. Everyone acquainted by correspondence with the Boer population knew that ever since the war commenced they had shown themselves an intelligent race, and that England had all its work cut out if she hoped to suppress the independence they were fighting for. It would be strange indeed if the voices of the Irish Members were not raised on behalf of a people whose only crime was fighting for liberty. The hon. Member who had just sat down had invited the Irish Members to London and the English villages. They did not want to go to English villages or to London; they wanted to remain at home; but if they were compelled to come to London, they wished to plead for the cause of Ireland. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that if he came to Ireland Irish hospitality and generosity would be extended towards him, although he would refuse that to the Trish Members in England; he would have ample scope to express his opinions and would go back without any bodily injury, and therefore he need not be a bit afraid. He desired as a civilian to inquire what was to lie gained by this large increase in the military forces of this country. An increase of 120,000 men meant a very large permanent tax. Those who searched the history of the country would find that it was not by great armaments that England gained her greatest victories. It was due largely to the causes she had been engaged in. Today she had departed from her traditions and was engaged in a conflict with two small Republics which had earned the sympathy of the civilised world. The war had been the work of one gentleman of world-wide notoriety, and looking

    419
    back over the last twenty years he wondered whether Mr. Chamberlain and the Secretary for the Colonies were the same person. Inasmuch as Ireland would have to pay a large proportion of the cost for the increased armament, he protested against that increase. Irish representatives had been taunted with the number of Irish who were now at the front, but that was easy to explain. Taking advantage of Ireland's poverty, English recruiting sergeants had gone through the towns and through the country, and with their seductive tongues had persuaded the poor to enlist, and when once they enlisted the Irish did their duty. He joined with his colleagues in protesting against the Vote, as it was one with which the Irish people had no sympathy and did not desire to support.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES(Lynn Regis) congratulated the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat upon the concession he had made to the Government by his remark that the Irish soldiers at the front did their duty. It was a great concession, Although he did not suppose, whatever views might be expressed in the House by hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies, that Irish soldiers at the front would do anything else. A great deal had been said as to the origin of the war, but it was idle at this date to go into that subject. The war was due entirely to the policy of vacillation and the determination of Mr. Gladstone to obtain votes. He also congratulated the Under Secretary of State for War upon his not having fallen into the trap of compulsory service or conscription, and he trusted that he would in future always avoid it. No form of compulsory service or conscription was necessary in this country, and that was proved by the fact that whenever there was a prospect of war or we were engaged in war the Government had many thousands of men more than they required. The spirit which animated the people of this country was directly opposite to that which animated any nation in the world except the Irish, who always came forward if there was fighting to be done, and in times of peace devoted their time to their farms and their landlords. Conscription gave a country the very worst army in the world. Under that system were obtained a certain number of average men who for the most part
    420
    were not fighting men at all, and if conscription were established in this country the Government would obtain a large number of peaceably disposed persons and men not physically so fit as they obtained under the present system. Under the voluntary system now in vogue they got men who could fight or who thought they could, and those were the right men to secure. He had seen Continental armies weeping in battalions, he might say, on being ordered to the front. Such a thing was never seen in this country; the men who come forward like fighting. Therefore he hoped that the Under Secretary of State for War and his noble chief would continue to resist the insidious temptation to establish a compulsory service. The Under Secretary of State for War seemed to divide the necessities of the case under three heads—first, the defence of these islands; secondly, the necessities under our foreign policy; and, thirdly, South Africa. Of the three the one requiring the least attention was the defence of these islands. He did not think it was necessary to call out the reserves for that purpose; nor did he think there was any necessity for those measures of defence which, to quote the hon. Gentleman's own words, were "required not as a defence against attack, but as an insurance against the fear that might spring from a threat of attack." There was no present threat of attack and no present ground for any fear at all in connection with the safety of these islands, which were amply protected as long as the English Fleet remained in its present condition. Although the Army might have looked a little better than it was, the English Fleet looked a great deal worse than it was; it was his conviction that it was, in fact, immeasurably superior to any other navy that existed. There was no necessity to consider the future of these islands so far as the people themselves were concerned, in as much as these islands must always be protected by the Fleet, and it was hardly necessary for the hon. Gentleman to put that consideration in the forefront of his policy. The question of the future of the Empire would, he thought, demand the serious attention of the Government. The Empire was about to pass through a period of menace. Movements were taking place on the Indian frontier on the part of Russia, and also in the heart of Persia, but perhaps the most serious

    421
    menace of all was the suggested making of Holland an integral part of the German Empire. In that event the German fleet would be almost, if not quite, as good as our own. The Germans had ships and guns, but still they had no navy. They had; no naval traditions, but if they succeeded in obtaining Dutch sailors with Dutch naval traditions, and put them into German ships to work German guns, the whole face of Europe would, by such an evolution, be entirely changed. That was a thing for which the Hon. Gentleman's scheme did not provide, but that was a thing to which he should give his serious attention. The most pressing consideration was no doubt the conduct of the present war. The faults, if faults there had been, arose from the conviction of the War Office that one officer was just as good as another, and that when it was a question of choosing a general any general would do. In the Navy, when a man lost a ship or a gun, he was immediately court-martialled, but in South Africa we had had generals who apparently could not find the enemy without losing a thousand men and having the heads of their columns blown away; yet there had been no hint or suggestion that the generals should be called to account. It was the immediate inquiry or court-martial in the Navy which made that service so efficient, and it was the exactly contrary system which in the Army constituted one of its most disastrous defects. In South Africa we wanted probably, first of all more troops, and then a better method of choosing the generals, and more responsibility fixed on the generals when they were chosen. He had no desire to blame our generals, although they were not beyond blaming their subordinates. He blamed nobody. All he desired to say was, if such a system was enforced of fixing responsibility on the heads of the Army as obtained in the Navy, we might expect greater success.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON (): Those who vote for the men who are now asked for, vote for the policy of this war, and as I object to that policy I object to vote for the men. We have already lost a vast number of men and a great deal of money. We cannot get any glory after what has taken place, and I cannot see that we can gain any profit; and when we look a little abroad, after we have ceased
    422
    to be proud of what we are now doing, we shall know that nations of the civilised world will condemn us. I know that the people at large think that something may be gained by this war, and, that being so, it behoves us to see what we are fighting for. Upon that I will just quote one sentence which appeared in The Times newspaper in September last. The writer of the article said—
    "There is no price which the people of this country are not prepared to pay in order to vindicate their position as the paramount power in South Africa."
    [Cheers.] I am glad to hoar those cheers, because it shows that the object of this war is paramountey in South Africa. Now what does paramountey mean? I should say, without looking at the dictionary, forcing upon a country a government it does not want. In other words it is tyranny. It may be that the quotation I have given is so ancient as to cease to lie interesting, therefore let me give one taken from a speech of my right Hon, friend the Member for Wolverhampton last Friday. Everybody knows that there is no more enthusiastic supporter of the war than my right hon. friend. He had been dining with a lot of soldiers and made an after-dinner speech. He said—
    "We must dismiss us unworthy of notice the ridiculous allegations that we are contending merely for a five or seven years franchise, or the redress of certain grievances, or for some point in the negotiations which diplomacy might have adjusted. The Army, which their quests that night were to join, was fighting neither for gold nor territory, but to resist and defeat a supremacy which would be a standing menace and a ceaseless danger to Great Britain."
    And he concluded with those words—
    "We bid you god-speed, and with you and the vast and overwhelming majority of the British people, we reverently add, 'May God defend the right!'"
    It is therefore a question simply of supremacy, and nothing else: an instance of the good old jingo phrase of—
    "The good old rule the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can."
    But I say that when he calls upon God in this matter it rather gives me a turn, because I do not think the Supreme Being ought to be called upon to become an accomplice in our crime and cruelty in

    423
    this matter. The new diplomacy is dangerous and disgusting, and the new religion is detestable. I will not give my vote in support of a policy like this. I know the argument at the present moment is that we must go on fighting because the Boers have got our territory. Technically that seems to be correct, But it is defiance, not defence—it is the spirit of Imperialism which is urging on this enterprise, so fraught with guilt and danger to the Empire. Lord Rosebery, who certainly ought to be an authority, says at present it is a question of life and death. I agree with him humbly. I think we are in peril. But we are not in peril from the Boers, or from those nations to which he alluded. The peril, Mr. Speaker, is in the spirit of pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy which we pray against in church every Sunday so ineffectually, and which has taken possession of the people of this country. The Colonial Secretary is the most perfect representative of that state of feeling we have ever had in this country. That state of feeling has already led to the most disastrous proceeding of modern times in this country, and if it is not checked it will lead to further disaster. I know those who are carrying on this war, the Colonial Secretary and his colleagues or accomplices, say they are supported by the vast majority of this House and by the majority of the country. If that were not so, I would not speak. I feel sure there are many men on this side of the House who condemn the war as much as I do, and yet they honestly and conscientiously think the only thing is to see it through. With all deference to those hon. friends of mine, I say to take that course is to obliterate the distinction between right and wrong. I am sorry to differ from many of my friends who take this line, but I cannot take it. I know that opposition to this war is unpopular. Wars are always popular. What is popularity? In a few years it will matter very little to any of us whether we are popular or not. It may matter to us whether we were right, and I am sure it will matter to us whether we tried to be right or not. In that view I hold it to be our duty on every occasion, by our voice and by our vote, to protest against the policy which has already involved this country in deep disgrace, and which, if persisted in, will, I am sure, end in a serious national disaster.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL(Donegal, S.) said he felt it utterly impossible to discuss this question with anything bordering on heat or passion. His views with reference to this war were well known, but like the majority of Members, he had very dear relatives and friends at the front, and their jeopardy compelled him to speak with as much temperance and forbearance as he could. There was scarcely a man in the House who had not some relatives or connections at the front; but the right hon. Gentleman who made the war (the Colonial Secretary) had his relatives and connections not at the front but on the Treasury Bench. He was not displeased with the references to the Irish soldiers of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The Irish soldiers in the Army were largely Catholic and Nationalist peasants. They were intensely national. They entered the Army partly from the spirit of fighting and partly through the necessities of their case. They did not interfere with politics. They recognised that their absolute duty as soldiers was to obey commands and not interfere in politics. But he wondered what their feelings would be when they learned they had been praised by enemies of Ireland on the Tory benches to point an attack on the Nationalist Members.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am not an enemy of Ireland.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the hon. Member was not a conscious enemy of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did not forget that the reason Wellington and Peel were compelled to grant Catholic emancipation was because Irish Catholic soldiers cheered for O'Connell in the streets of Limerick. The resentment of Irish soldiers would be very great when they learned and found out that they were used as the instruments of a political party in that House. The more it was instilled into the minds of Irish soldiers that they were not merely doing their duty, but that they were political agents, and had to take part in a political battle, the better for those who wished to see the restoration of Ireland's legislative independence. On Friday night he asked the Under Secretary of State for War to give him the number of the Irish Militia regiments that had been since this war began transferred from Ireland to England, and the

    425
    number of regiments which had taken their place. The numbers were given, and he then asked why the Irish Militia regiments who stayed at home were not allowed with arms in their hands. No answer was given, but the hon. Member for South Belfast said it was because they were rebels. The explanations given by the Under Secretary of State for War on Friday night wore, if he might use the expression, "fudge." At the time of the Union, the English Government sent ten Irish Militia regiments to England and sent English regiments in their place. The reason for that was that the Government was afraid—as it was afraid now—to have Irish regiments in Ireland with arms in their hands. It was a reversal of the whole spirit of the Militia that they should be taken away from Ireland to England, and it showed that the Government were afraid to trust these Irish regiments. The hon. Member hail given most elaborate details of the various provisions ho intended to make with reference to the English Volunteers, and referred especially to the improvement of their rifle ranges. He wished to ask the Under Secretary for War whether he would allow them to have Volunteer rifle clubs in Ireland. There were no Volunteers in Ireland, and such was the dread and the horror the hon. Gentleman had of allowing Irish regiments to have arms in their hands in their own country, that even the Militia were deported. This was not a Christian war, but one which was supported by a great many people who were practically enemies of the Christian religion. He believed it to be a war simply for the purpose of raiding the gold mines, and that it was one of the blackest and foulest transactions m the history of the world. The last time he spoke on the subject of the war in that House, he felt sure that the war would be a "walk over," that the British would be in Pretoria in ten days. He protested against it then. How much more did he protest against it now, when no fewer than 10,000 of our flesh and blood had been destroyed, or were prisoners. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] There was not much exaggeration in that statement. He scarcely knew one man who was not mourning the loss of some relative through the war, and when it was recollected that the war was not for the expansion of the Empire, but was simply to get gold for a set of jobbers on the
    426
    Stock Exchange, the thing became intolerable. He never subscribed to the doctrine of O'Connell that all political movements were not worth the shedding, of one drop of human blood, but he did say that one drop of human blood ought not to have been sacrificed at the bidding of any Birmingham Mars.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER (): Like many Liberals on this side of the House, I disagree with most of the speeches made by my hon. friends around me. Though some-of us may agree that the Government may have mismanaged the negotiations and the war at the outset, and may express that opinion in our votes, yet we are determined to help the Government in every way we can to carry the war to successful issue. I utterly disagree with the hon. Member for the Eifion Division, who said he believed most of us on this side of the House were anxious for peace at once. Yes, we are anxious for peace, but only for peace on honourable terms, when the war has been brought to a successful issue. A great deal of this scheme is good. But the unauthorised part of the programme, the unpublished part of the programme, is coming out bit by bit. The additions which have been made to the comfort of the troops, such as the flannel shirts which have been asked for, the small extra pay for the Militia—all these things are good and will encourage recruiting for the Army and Militia. But there are one-or two things which I think it has been agreed by most Members who speak on the subject will not be very satisfactory in their results. One is taking out the Volunteers for a whole month. I think the Under Secretary for War will find that a large proportion of the Volunteer battalions are not likely to come out for a whole month. I suggest that the officers of many of them might be attached to our Militia or Line regiments. It would immensely benefit the Volunteer force if the officers had a month's such training every year or for one year. The great need, I believe, on the part of Volunteer officers, is the want of technical knowledge. If the young men who have just joined, or who have done a year or two, were taken out for a month with a regular regiment, they would at least learn their drill. I further want to ask that some encouragement should be given to

    427
    non-commissioned officers. It would encourage non-commissioned officers immensely if they were sometimes made warrant officers. I know there are objections to that promotion, but they can be easily got over. Another difficulty in connection with the Militia and the Yeomanry is that their instructors have gone out to South Africa, and the troops in many cases have been left with nobody to instruct them. I hope that a part of this scheme will be to supply suitable instructors. Another thing I object to, in an important part of the scheme, is the way the Militia is to be embodied. What we want is that there should be a force available almost at once, or as soon as possible. I have pressed that some Militia regiments should be embodied at once. The answer is, where is the barrack accommodation I Surely it would be better to hire a building somewhere and put the troops in, or to put them into your artillery or cavalry barracks, than to wait until after the time they arc wanted before they are embodied. I think the scheme for embodying the whole of the Militia for three months during the summer, will be a very heavy tax on the country, and will be bad for the recruiting of the Militia, because it will take men away from their work for three months, and will in no way conduce to the present defence of the country. By the time they have done their training it will be getting on towards the end of the summer, when I hope many of the troops will be coming home from South Africa. I propose that instead of embodying the whole 50,000 for three months in the summer, 5,000 or 6,000 should be embodied at once; that would be more conducive to the efficiency of the Militia and the present protection of the country, which is the great object of the scheme. Many things are done in this scheme for the improvement of the Reserve forces, but I do not think it can be for the permanent improvement of the Reserve forces if you take out the Militia for three months when work is most plentiful. I hope that part of the scheme will be modified, so that we may have more troops out at once and the men called out for a shorter period at a time when they have plenty of work.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (): I feel impelled to rise because of
    428
    the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division. He seemed to suggest that it is impossible for anyone who does not agree with the policy on which this war is founded to vote in favour of the necessary force to enable the Government to carry it to a successful conclusion. I venture entirely to differ from that. We have had this war thrust upon us much against our own will, and under the conviction that it would have been perfectly possible to avoid it. But having entered on this war, we of the Liberal party feel that to withdraw from the war at the present time—except upon terms consistent at least with the dignity of this country—would be to lay up in future a still greater disaster for the country. That is sufficient justification for us, who take the view that there I was no necessity for this war being entered upon, in supporting the Government. This I will say, that from the commencement of this war, or perhaps from the commencement of the disasters, the efforts which have been made by the Government have, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of the masses of the people of this country, been more; than commensurate with the necessities of the case. I do not blame the Government for this, because if you err it is well to err on the safe side; but it is a matter of profound regret we have had to listen to such a speech as that which fell from the lips of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. We may be sitting comfortably in our quiet homes, reading in The Times newspaper the vivid descriptions of the war correspondents, and we may be inclined to criticise our generals somewhat harshly, but if a general is to have the terror of a court martial hanging over his head all the while he is conducting his operations it would be little short of an absurdity, and would be ludicrous if it were not so offensive. But it matters a great deal more when a gentleman holding a high position under the Crown, and on the responsibility of a Foreign Minister, shrugs his shoulders and indulges in language of panic and terror, which in itself constitutes the strongest possible condemnation of the Government. I cannot help thinking that there is nothing to render us apprehensive of the future condition of our country. I said a minute or two ago that the Government's measures for

    429
    the defence of this country were more than commensurate with the necessities of the case, and I do ask the Under Secretary for War why he has not given us some explanation of this permanent increase in the Army. I do not mean of the skeleton machinery for the artillery and Army service, because that is perfectly justified, but I do not understand why there should be a permanent increase of twelve battalions of infantry. I venture to remind the House that the land forces of the British Empire amount to something like 950,000 men—I think that is the grand total. We know that—apart from the defensive forces, which are more than adequate—the demand for colonial defences has been, in accordance with the considered policy of the Government, steadily decreasing. So far as Canada is concerned it is defended, to all intents and purposes—I believe that in Halifax there is a small Imperial garrison, but that is not in Canada—by colonial forces; and if I am not wrong, I believe it was contemplated in 1896 that all Imperial troops should be withdrawn from Natal, and the whole tendency of our colonial policy for many years past has been to decrease the number of our Imperial forces. Therefore, assuming this war is brought to an end, and supposing that we should bring about a settlement of the war upon honourable and durable terms of peace, then I would ask the Under Secretary of State for War this question—Why is there to be this increase of 130,000 men? And why do I press this question? Because, in my opinion, there is nothing in the condition of the Empire which indicates any necessity for an increase of our land forces. I think in saying this that I am stating what is common knowledge; but I would venture to remind the House that there is practically no land frontier to any portion of the British Empire except the northern frontier of India and, to judge by recent events, the frontiers in South Africa. But a comparatively small force would be sufficient to hold our Indian Empire in safety against the attacks of any foreign Power. If, then, with the exception of the Soudan and South Africa, the northern frontier of India is the only land frontier which it is necessary to protect, I would ask the hon. Gentleman this question—Is it for the purpose of contingencies in the Soudan or in South Africa, or is it for the purpose of contingencies anywhere else, that this permanent
    430
    increase of land forces by twelve battalions is required? I recognise the admirable spirit in which the Government have responded to the feelings of the country in respect to the preparations for bringing this war to a successful conclusion. It is not, however, the duty of this country to maintain a great military force, and I think you can rely for the most part upon the spirit which has been shown by all classes of the community in responding to the appeal of the Government. I think that this money, if it is to be spent at all, should be spent in further developing the defences of the Empire, and it would be spent with much more justice, reason, and permanent good if it were employed in further strengthening the naval forces of this country.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB (): With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I should like to make one or two observations. He says that he docs not see what necessity there is for any addition to the land forces of the country at all. I hope he will pardon me if I just bring before the House as shortly as I can some reason why this addition should be made. The hon. Member has said that we have a limited land frontier, and that, therefore, the necessity for the military defence of this Empire is a small one. I think the House, and the country generally, realise now that it is a primary condition of our existence as an Empire or as a country that we should rule the sea. But suppose that we have a force sufficient and necessary to do that in face of any considerable or reasonable combination. What would be the position of the Empire then? It would be this—that while on the other hand, the possession of an adequate sea force to meet the naval conditions then in existence would unquestionably secure us against invasion, what would be the condition of our commerce and our trade under these circumstances? While naval supremacy can secure the paralysis of the effective war power of the enemy in any bulk on the sea, in these days of steam naval supremacy cannot guarantee our trade and commerce against a certain amount of predatory attack. What that amount would be we do not know—in any

    431
    case it may not be very much, but in the case of a great, commercial Empire like ours it is not actually necessary for great physical damage to be done to merchant shipping to produce commercial paralysis, and for this reason: it is the moral effect upon your business or trade and commerce that is your real danger, and a very real danger it is, although you have naval supremacy. I will take up that position, and I am not going to detain the House long. What would be the effect upon freights and insurance?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must really confine himself to the Army Vote. What he is discussing would apply more to the Navy Vote.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: It is one of the difficulties of this House that we have before us a Vote to meet the danger of war, and we are told that part of this money is to go for military forces to resist an invasion. But the possibility of invasion is a naval matter. I quite recognise the justice of your decision, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I can put myself right in this way. Without going into the naval and commercial question, I think I am in order in is being inflicted upon your commerce and your trade, obviously it must be of the first necessity to terminate that war; that is my position, I am trying to keep within the rules of order. I will take the position that it is necessary for the commercial interests of this country to terminate a state of things that would be injurious to our commerce and our trade. Our first necessity will be some ready means to terminate the war, and by what means can you terminate it I Your Fleet cannot do it; it cannot inflict very much damage upon the fortified portions of your: enemy's country. Your Fleet is your shield, and your Army is the spear which strikes. If the proposals of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down were carried out we should have a strong Fleet, but I want to know under those conditions, if you have no army, how long would this country submit to that of things. The cost of the insurance of freights would rise and you could not compete in foreign markets. If you have no military force to strike and terminate a war, then I think the commercial down fall of this Empire would be close at
    432
    hand. I respectfully call the attention of this House to one point, at all events, that has been elicited by my getting up. It is a peculiar and ordinary nature of the procedure in this House that while the principles of the defence of this Empire is a complex question and can only be dealt with properly by considering the Army and Navy together, the rules of this House put me practically in a position in which I cannot deal with the question at all. We have had, as a recommendation to pass this Vote, references made to certain permanent military arrangements, some of which are based upon the supposition of an impending invasion. Under these circumstances perhaps I shall be in order in following my hon, friend upon that. My hon. friend says we are to provide some extra forces to replace garrisons and troops which have gone out of the country in order to secure ourselves from an impending invasion. Whether invasion is possible or not is a naval question, and I am debarred by the rules of the House from dealing with it. But perhaps I may be in order in dealing with the references of the hon. Member with regard to this matter. He says that you must provide this military force, and spend this money to secure yourselves from invasion while which, your Fleet is away. I ventured when he said that to interject the query "where?" To that he answered that your Fleet will be off your enemy's coasts or facing the enemy's fleet. But does my hon. friend realise what that means? Does ho realize that it would be impossible for the enemy; under such circumstances, to even contemplate the sending of a great military expedition across the water? In explaining to this House how it was that he could not send more troops suddenly to South Africa, my hon. friend very properly reminded the House that you could only send a limited number of troops out of the country in a week on account of the difficulties of embarkation. He pointed out that there are not quays enough or harbours or facilities enough to send more than a limited number on this account. I really do ask, when the Government is beginning to make for further local defences in this country, my hon. friend to reconcile his position. His position is that we are to spend money on garrisons, and add to our local garrisons and means of military defence, because the Fleet in a time of war will be

    433
    off the enemy's coasts and facing enemy, and how on earth under those conditions the enemy is a large army over here to invade us I must ask my hon. friend to explain. My own impression is that there is an infinite waste of the resources of the State being spent on a supposed condition of things which in war can have no real existence. I agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he said that if your Fleet cannot defend you from invasion you are lost, because when the maritime conditions are such that there might be a huge military expedition sent across the seas to attack us we should be in a position that would hardly be worth defending. Our Empire is locked out—our commerce and trade is gone. I will repeat the question which I have put: Given a state of things pictured by himself—that is, a state of war—our Fleet off the enemy's coast and facing the enemy's fleet, I ask him to explain to this House why under those circumstances we must be prepared with a great military defensive army? I say, in conclusion, that this question has been approached too much in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and in this House, from the point of view of this home part of the Empire only in relation to war. If we cannot be master of the sea we are not master of our own Empire. If we are masters of the sea we cannot be invaded. The great necessity of our Empire is the keeping open of our water communications, and when my hon. friend tells us that we must have this great military expenditure and this great military force to resist a probable invasion at home, does he not see that he supposes the rest of the Empire is entirely isolated? His whole hypothesis is to defend the United Kingdom, because we cannot rely upon our Fleet to prevent an attack upon the United Kingdom by a huge military force. Such a proposal is really an intimation to our colonies that we are looking to ourselves, and that they must shift for themselves. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that recently we have had an awakener in this respect which I hope the Government realises, and we are looking forward to the future in the hope that the true policy of this country will be to come to some arrangement with the outlying portion of the Empire to help to provide a Fleet sufficiently strong to maintain our sea supremacy in the face of all the world, and that having done that the next stage,
    434
    and the one which concerns the War Office, is that we shall maintain an adequate Army of sufficient mobility, composed perhaps of men furnished by the mother country and the colonies alike, which would be capable of offence and of terminating any war the continuation of which might be disastrous to our commercial position and to our Empire. We do not want an army to sit down behind fortifications and take part in local defence only, but we want an army in a position to be able by striking to terminate a war if our trade and commerce are threatened, and the only weapon in our hands capable of doing this is a mobile military force.
    *MR. TULLY (): I think we who represent Irish constituencies, and who are sent here by Irish votes, would not be doing our duty if we did not avail ourselves of every opportunity to protest against this war. The people who sent us here are, as far as we can gather from personal association with them, almost unanimous against this war. They think it is an iniquitous and unjust war, and one which is being waged from the basest of human motives. I have seen the statement in the papers that this war has been promoted by the greed for gold. We in Ireland object to having to pay the extra expense for troops and munitions of war which you require to carry on this struggle. It has been stated that there is in the Transvaal an enormous quantity of gold. I think it was stated in one instance that there was £200,000,000 worth of gold in the Transvaal. You are waging this war to get hold of and control that enormous quantity of gold, and with that object you carry on this war and make great sacrifices and an enormous loss of blood and treasure in order that you may succeed in beating down the resistance of those two Republics. But when you have succeeded, after a desperate struggle, in defeating the two Boer Republics in the field I think you will have to reckon with the nations of Europe, who are jealous of your power, and who will not quietly submit to your getting hold of this enormous quantity of gold. It must be remembered that in fighting the Boers you are fighting not only the troops of President Kruger and President Steyn, but you are fighting the picked officers of Europe, who have boon sent out by European nations to oppose your getting control of the enormous quantities of gold which are to be found in the Trans-

    435
    vaal. We in Ireland object to having to pay for this raid for gold mines in the Transvaal, and as long as we are Members of this House we shall use every means in our power to protest against this war, and the means you have adopted to carry it out. One hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House stated the other day that English Members should not tolerate Irish Members speaking in this House on the question of the war. It is a curious state of things that, after you go to war in the Transvaal for the purpose of enfranchising the Uitlanders, Members of this House should wish that Irish Members in this Parliament should not be allowed to speak on this subject. It seems to me that that is not showing any remarkable consistency, especially when it comes from the hon. Member for Darlington, who is a strong advocate for war, and who is a monument of inconsistency himself; as he is a member of a well-known Peace family.
    MR. H. P. PEASE: I did not say that.
    *MR. TULLY: The hon. Member disputes that.
    *MR. H. P. PEASE: I did not say that at all. What I said was that the remarks made by Irishmen with regard to the Majuba incident would not lie listened to in any other place in England except in this House.
    *MR. TULLY: Why are we brought here to this House, for we do not come here of our own free will? You have had this war going on for nearly five months, and you are always claiming that you are winning victories. After being told of a victory, Napoleon once said—"If you have won a victory, where are your prisoners." I ask, after all the victories you have won, where are your prisoners? The prisoners seem to have all been taken by the other side. The hon. Gentleman opposite says that we should go through the villages of England and express our views against this war. I might extend a similar invitation to him, and ask him to come over to Ireland and ask the people there if they are willing to give their consent to spending money in order to grab the gold mines of the Transvaal. I do not think the hon. Member opposite would be inclined to accept that invitation. We know very well how the soldiers that you recruit in Ireland are treated both during the war
    436
    and after the war. We know how our Crimean veterans have been treated, and we know how they have been left to live on the rates in Ireland at the expense of the ratepayers. It was only to-day that the case of an Irishwoman who had seven sons serving in the British Army, and who is an inmate of a workhouse in Derbyshire, was brought under the notice of this House. That is the way you treat the people who allow their relatives to go and fight for your supremacy. The scandalous way in which you treated the men; who fought for you in the Crimea is without parallel. I remember two years ago ago, when on a cycling trip in France, I came across a man who was occupying a very good position, who said he had served as a private in the French Army in the Crimean War, and he showed me a medal he got from Queen Victoria. I told him: that he was in a very fortunate position, I because in Ireland the privates who fought in the Crimea were mostly to be found in the workhouses. The Irishmen who have gone out to this war will be treated when they come back just in the same way as the soldiers who went out and fought for you against Russia during the Crimean War. You have treated the Militiamen in Ireland very badly. You have sent them to the front, although a Militiaman always believed when he joined that he could not be sent out of these islands. And yet you sent out two or three months ago to South Africa very early in this business a number of these: men to the front who never believed that I they would have to go to South Africa to fight as Regular troops. They have gone to the front and left many of their relatives penniless, and we have to maintain and feed in my parish out of the rates many of the families who were dependent on these Militiamen. I say that it is a monstrous state of things that these people are now a charge upon the rates in Ireland, and that is sufficient to make them hostile to this war. As long as you have this state of things you are not likely to get many recruits in Ireland under your new scheme. We are told that this scheme is the only alternative to conscription, and hon. Members on the opposite benches have been denouncing conscription. In regard to this war, up to quite recently this House was almost as gloomy as a graveyard, but since the news arrived on Friday night that Kimberley had been relieved hon.

    437
    Members have been restored to the use of their speech. A lot of them were advocating conscription, and we were told that if the Under Secretary's proposals did not bring in the necessary number of men, there was no alternative except conscription. But if you adopt that policy will you extend conscription to Ireland? What is the message that we must take to our constituencies? Of course conscription is not always objected to by the middle or the lower classes, but it is usually objected to by the small oligarchies that are in power. In France when they had conscription it led to the over throw of the tyranny of the French kings. A great reformer once said that the reason why the French were so enthusiastic in the defence of their country was that every man had not only got a rifle, but had also got the land. It is only when the peasants have got the land that you can get them to fight as they do in the countries where they have conscription. You are sending out a large number of Irishmen who are placed at the mercy of some of the generals whom we have heard so severely criticized in this debate. I object to having Irish men sent out as mere bullocks to the shambles to be butchered at the instance of generals who have very little idea of the rudiments of modern warfare. We have heard here to-night a statement as to how the officers spend their time at polo and lawn tennis and other games of that description instead of attending to the ordinary duties of war. We have seen in the press the complaints which have been made about the want of good maps of the country between the Tugela and Ladysmith. General Buller has gone across the Tugela several times, and he has come back several times, and the trouble was that there were no good military maps—
    *MR. SPEAKER: The question of the want of maps does not arise here.
    *MR. TULLY: The officers have spent many months in that country before the Boers invested Ladysmith, and they have not made any maps. I suppose they spent their time playing polo. I say that Irishmen have been put under officers who will show the same lack of intelligence in military matters. I heard the statement here the other night made by the hon. Member for Battersea that you do not recognise in the Army the brains
    438
    among the non-commissioned officers. You run your Army recruiting from two classes, the aristocrats and the labourers, and therefore you do not recognise any brains in the non-commissioned officers by giving them commissions, and there is no promotion from the ranks. This is a proof to my mind that your army is rotten as a social institution, and you are running it to keep up the present state of things, and the present distribution of wealth in England. If you had conscription, and if every man could use a rifle, do you think the people would tolerate for one moment the present distribution of wealth? When we go home at night we find poor wretches sleeping under the archways and the bridges—
    *MR. SPEAKER: I must again ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the question before the House.
    *MR. TULLY: I apologise for travelling away from the point before me, but the interruptions of hon. Members opposite caused it. I think this point about the officers is one of considerable importance, especially when Irish soldiers are sent out to be put under the command of officers who are absolutely unacquainted with the details of their business in time of war. I remember reading in The Times two days after the ultimatum was delivered several letters written by a Dutch Cape Colonist. Surprise was then expressed that these two small Republics should be filled with the idea that they could resist for a month the great resources of this Empire. That was published in The Times to show how much they derided the Boers, and this writer wrote some very remarkable letters which have been absolutely borne out by what has taken place between that date up to the present. He stated that a few weeks after the war England would find herself reduced in the estimation of the world to a position almost like that of Spain from a military point of view. These letters were published by The Times as a matter of derision, and they were replied to by one of the generals now commanding in South Africa. He wrote a very short letter replying to this Dutchman, in which he referred to the want of brains and intelligence in the Dutch who dared to make the assertion that the Boer Republics would not be wiped out in the month. This very general was sent to the front

    439
    and was put in command of our Connaught Rangers at Colenso, where our men were absolutely decimated; and I remember a statement made by Mr. Bennett Burleigh, in which he said these men while under fire were sent out to mark the regular distances of the men from each other. Upon this Vote I believe I cannot refer to your defective arms, but upon the other Vote I intend to refer to the matter of inferior rifles, artillery, and powder—
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing these matters now.
    *MR. TULLY: Upon the next Vote I shall strive to offer some remarks on that aspect of the case. At present I will confine myself to just one or two brief remarks in conclusion as to why we Irish men are opposing this Vote, and why we should take every possible opportunity of doing so. We object to this Vote because the people in Ireland are entirely against it. The people who have placed us in this House by an overwhelming majority are entirely opposed to this war, and they object to paying any extra taxation for it, and as long as we are sent here we should not be discharging our duty if we did not raise our voices upon every possible occasion to object to this expenditure. We further object to this war and to the proposals before the House because we consider they are not put before us in a manner which should render them acceptable. We are told in one breath that these are the last proposals that will be made, and if they are not a success that we must have conscription. They will not be a success as far as Ireland is concerned in getting any more men. The way you have treated the men you have got will be no inducement to Irishmen to come forward. I think the proposals of the Government will be inadequate, and will not serve the purpose in view. We also complain that when you get the men from Ireland and send them to the front you put the Irish regiments in the most dangerous positions, and they arc generally exposed to the brunt of the fighting. The percentage of Irishmen killed in this war far exceeds the percentage of either Englishmen or men of other nationalities, and so long as that is the case you will not get recruits in Ire-
    440
    land when they know that they will be treated in this manner. After the way some of your officers have acted, you need not expect that you will get any further recruits from Ireland. On these grounds I desire to again raise my protest and object in every possible way to this Vote.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (): I rise for the purpose of associating myself with the hon. Members on this side of the House who have protested against the passing of the resolution now before us. I believe we are now in the twenty-fourth week of the war, which has been undertaken, we contend, entirely against the wishes of the Irish people. It has been undertaken unjustly, and, so far at least, it has turned out unprofitable to the fair fame and good name of this country. We have a constitutional right to express our opinion upon every subject which comes before the House. Some hon. Gentlemen on the other side appear to think that we should not interfere at very great length in what arc treated from time to time as purely Imperial questions. I must express my personal regret that we have, so far, fallen in with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for we have not interfered very much in matters affecting other portions of this great Empire. But on the present occasion the situation presents itself entirely in a different light, because, apart from the question of the financial aspect of the war, or the financial burden which will be cast upon us, a great number of our kith and kin have gone to the front, and the House contemplates a further call upon the men from Ireland to supply the deficiencies which the Boer marksmen have made in your great Army. Therefore I contend, in the first place, that we are amply justified, notwithstanding anything that has been said by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who object to our interference in taking part in this debate. The hon. Gentleman in charge of this motion has endeavoured to explain away the objections we have raised both in regard to the men and the money. It will be very hard for gentlemen opposite to explain the blundering, the incapacity, the want of foresight, and the want of judgment which have characterised the Department of which the hon. Gentleman in this House is the representative. During the debate we had in Committee last week the hon.

    441
    Member was literally bombarded from his own side of the House with suggestions, some of them in favour of his motion, some modifying it and some criticising it most sharply; and I certainly felt a considerable amount of sympathy with him in the difficulty he must have had to explain the different points brought under his notice by hon. Gentlemen on his own side. I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman seemed to receive a good deal more practical assistance from the Liberal Members than he did from many of his own followers and friends, and in this connection I would like to say, as a Nationalist, that I regret extremely that the great Liberal party of England has not had the courage to stand up for the rights and freedom of a gallant people. We object to the passing of this motion because it is almost certain that it contemplates the enlistment of more Irishmen in the British Array. We think that you have, in the past, treated Irishmen who have joined your Army very badly. Time after time I have brought under the notice of this House the ease of men who have served you in the past, and who had sacrificed their health and strength, and almost their very lives, in the service of this great Empire, and the hon. Gentleman's replies, on all occasions, were entirely unsympathetic. In the mature of things, if these examples are held up in the small towns and villages of Ireland they will not tend to induce Irishmen to join your ranks. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is not personally to blame for these, for there are a great many demands made upon the War Office; but despite that, the solid fact remains that in the small towns and villages in Ireland and in your workhouses we have instances of the niggardliness and meanness of the War Office.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to that subject.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I will endeavour, Sir, not to transgress the rules of order, and if I am told that I am not in order in mentioning these cases, I will not persist for a moment in contravening your ruling. I think the hon. Gentleman's department would be well advised if it acted more generously in cases of this kind in the future than in the past. Now I come to another branch of this discussion. The Vote before us
    442
    contemplates increasing the Militia and the Volunteers. First as to the Militia. In Ireland we have different Militia battalions throughout the country which are embodied for a few weeks every year for the purposes of training. I observe that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote made it part of his excuse for transferring Militia battalions from Ireland to England that there was not sufficient barrack accommodation in Ireland. That is an argument which is absolutely untenable. I have personal knowledge of three country towns—the headquarters of Militia regiments—and I say that the barrack accommodation in these towns is ample for battalions three times the size of the battalions transferred to this country. Take Longford, formerly the headquarters of an entire regiment, always the headquarters of a cavalry brigade. There was no reason on the ground of barrack accommodation for sending the local Militia regiment away from their native town to the South of England. The same may be said of Mullingar, which is considered one of the largest outlying military stations, apart from the Curragh, and the same may also be said of Cavan, which I have the honour to represent. The excuse that these regiments had to be transferred for want of sufficient barrack accommodation is absolutely untenable. On the contrary, the real reason is because you would not trust the Irish Militia with arms in their own country. English regiments have been sent to Ireland, and it is perfectly idle for the hon. Gentleman to contend that we have not ample room for all the needs of the case. If these Irish regiments were left at home a great many of the charges of kidnapping Militia regiments for active service would have been avoided, and as for any danger to the Empire occurring by reason of a few Militia regiments being embodied the idea is grotesque and absurd. We are also asked under this Vote to provide for an increase in the Volunteer force. In Ireland we have no Volunteer force at all, and we are asked to provide for an increase in a force which does not exist in our country. In 1782 we had a Volunteer force, and we secured a large measure of local independence, and ever since you have been afraid to trust young Irishmen with the opportunity to learn the use of fireams or a knowledge of drill, unless they join your recruits from

    443
    Whitechapel and other places in regiments of the Line, or join the Militia, or take other means equally objectionable to them. It is a perfect scandal to ask Irish Members to assent to raising the status of your Volunteers, while you brand their countrymen with inferiority, and will not give them facilities to be trained or allow arms in their hands. How can you expect that we will look with favour on this proposal to turn your Volunteers from a civil into a military force? The whole objection to this Vote on our part is, however, a national objection. We believe that the war in which you are engaged is unholy and unjust; that it has undertaken, not for freedom liberty, but that it is the direct outcome of a secret plan and conspiracy on the part of capitalists in the City of London to take away under the pretext of obtaining freedom for the Uitlanders of Johannesburg the liberties of a people in order that they themselves may grab the 100 tons of gold which underlie the environs of that city. We protest against this war, if I may so, without any intention of being profane, on more holy grounds. We maintain that a war such as this, which could have been avoided by friendly negotiation, is a crime against the laws of God and man. Look at the danger of letting loose the passions of war on a now country such as South Africa. You have three races—.British, Dutch, and Native. What would be the terrible and awful consequences if by your thirst for gold the savage races were let loose on the white settlers. We protest against this war as unrighteous and unjust. I do not say there may not have been some justification for a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of particular white men in the Transvaal, but it was not sufficient to lead to the sacrifice of two thousand of your soldiers and the maiming of five or six thousand more. I pass by the prestige of this Empire—that is no concern of mine. I have no feeling of Imperialism. I only wish for the good of the country of which I am one of the representatives, and from this war no good can come to our country. We are a small part of the United Kingdom, as you call it, we are in a minority in this House and are unable to affect the course of Imperial events; but if we cannot affect that course and bring this war to a speedy and correct con-
    444
    clusion we will at all events have cleaned from our hands and put from our doors the allegation that we have been any party to this unholy and unjust war, and when the historian of the future deals with the matter from a broader point of view I sincerely believe and trust he will pay a tribute of grateful recognition to the efforts a few Irishmen have made in this House to put before this great Empire and the world the fact that we believe the war to be unjust and improper and that as such it ought to be put a stop to at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. FLAVIN ()said he wished to move the motion standing in his name to reduce the Vote by £12,000,000. He thought it his duty to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to several answers the right hon. Gentleman had given to questions he put to him in connection with War Office finance. The first of the series related to a man who had served in South Africa, had been invalided home, and had there been treated in the most scandalous fashion—
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. J. P. FARRELL). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
    MR. FLAVIN (continuing)said he was much in the same dilemma as ho was before, because there was no representative of the War Office present; but he would address his remarks generally to the House. He protested against the Vote of an increase of 120,000 men to the Army because a large proportion of the men would be drawn from Ireland, just as a large proportion of the 200,000 men at present in South Africa wore drawn from the Irish people. What was very strange about the whole of this question was that great temptations were offered to. induce men to join the Army, but when they were-invalided home after service they were-treated with no consideration. Within the last week an Irish Militia reservist was invalided home. He fought in two of the principal battles. In the first engagement a bullet went through his helmet, and in the second he was very badly wounded in the leg. This man, being of no further use to Her Majesty, was sent home, and, if his information

    445
    was correct, he was only allowed six-pence a day pension. But before going to South Africa he was entitled to sixpence a day pension, so that he was now, though invalided for life, only in the same position as before he volunteered to go to the front. He held that that was absolutely a shame. The man was married too, and that made the case forty thousand times worse. The Financial Secretary to the War Office said the other day that no father, mother, sister or brother of a Reservist could get any benefit if he were killed or injured, but that provision would be made for the wife of a married man. He (the hon. Member) could not see where the difference came in, and why provision should not be made for an aged father or mother.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must direct his attention to the question before the House.
    MR. FLAVIN: Yes, but when they were asked to vote 120,000 men and when they saw that inducements were offered to men to go to the front, that some provision was to be made for their representatives, he wanted to protest against these men being thrown into Irish workhouses when they came home invalided. He would ask the War Office did they consider in common justice and humanity that a man invalided for life, whether he was unmarried or not, was sufficiently rewarded with a pension of 6d. a day, while in the same week a much higher pension was given to a policeman who happened to get his head broken.
    *MR. SPEAKERasked the hon. Member to confine his attention to the question before the House.
    MR. FLAVINsaid he did not wish to continue the discussion, but only wanted to show how the money levied on the public was given away in excess in one case and niggardly in another. Here was a poor Irish soldier who went to the front and sacrificed his life, and when he returned to this country he was starved
    by the War Office authorities with a pension of 6d. a day! That was a policy they would not fall into in Ireland. If the Government thought that a bed in a workhouse, with workhouse fare, was good enough for a man who sacrificed his life in South Africa, then it was the duty of the Irish representatives to expose the case in the House of Commons. But there was a broader question. He maintained that it was absolutely unnecessary to call out the 120,000 men asked for in this Vote. The British population in the Transvaal was said to be 120,000, as against 125,000 Boers: and in the Orange Free State 6,000 or 7,000 against 70,000 Boers. In the two Republics, roughly speaking, the Boer fighting men would only be one-fourth of the total population, or about 50,000 men: while owing to the few women and children, the men of fighting age amongst the Uitlanders in the two Republics would be one half, or, say 60,000 men. If that was the case, there would be 10,000 more British fighting men in the two Republics than Boers. But there was a British Army there of 200,000, and he thought it was most unfair, unjust, and inhuman to pit 260,000 men against 50,000 farmers. It was a most unequal struggle, and the surprise was to him that the Boers had not been wiped out of South Africa two mouths hence. But, instead of that, the Boers would be two months hence as strong as they were today, although the British had had a nominal victory. It was very difficult for hon. Members to imagine what war meant. It was impossible for them, sitting upon their easy seats on the floor of the House of Commons, to imagine its horrors. The hardships which the rank and file had to endure bordered on the inhuman. He always had protested and should continue to protest against the war, and that being so he should vote against the Government upon this motion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 22.)

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

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

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

    Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Hartley, George C. T.

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

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

    Bethell, Commander

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Billson, Alfred

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Caldwell, James

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lanes.)

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

    Harwood, George

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Helder, Augustus

    Purvis, Robert

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

    Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Holland, William Henry

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Houston, R. P.

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Howard, Joseph

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Curzon, Viscount

    Howell, William Tudor

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

    Rutherford, John

    Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chathm

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Denny, Colonel

    Kenyon, James

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Kimber, Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lafone, Alfred

    Shaw Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Langley, Batty

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

    Drucker. A.

    Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Dunn, Sir William

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Leng, Sir John

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Llewelyn, Sir D.-(Swansea)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Faber, George Denison

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Thomas, Sir Walter

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

    Finch, George H.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Webster, Sir Richard E.

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    M'Crae, George

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. J. Lloyd

    Galloway, William Johnson

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Gariit, William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Gedge, Sydney

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Monekton, Edward Philip

    Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

    Woods, Samuel

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmthn.)

    Wyndham, George

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Young Commander (Berks, E.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

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

    Yoxall, James Henry

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Myers, William Henry

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

    Greene, H. D. Shrewsbury)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    NOES.

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Parnell, John Howard

    Ambrose, Robert

    Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Blake, Edward

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

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

    Crilly, Daniel

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tully, Jasper

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Dillon, John

    Maudeville, J. Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Doogan, P. C.

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

    Kngledew, Charles John

    O'Malley, William

    Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [16TH FEBRUARY].
  Resolution reported:—

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not
  exceeding £1:5,000,000, 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, viz:—

  £

  Vote 1. Pay, & c., of the Army

  2,400,000

  Vote 2. Medical Establishments: Pay, & c.

  70,000

  Vote 3. Militia: Pay, & c.

  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

  Vole 8. Clothing Establishments and services

  500,000

  Vote 9. Warlike and other Stores

  1,600,000

  Vote 10. Works, & c.: Cost (including Staff for Engineer Services)

  150,000

  Vote 13. War Office Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

  10,000

  Total

  £13,000,000."

  Resolution road a second time.
  MR. FLAVIN,in moving the reduction of the Vote by £1:2,000,000, said he would not admit, having regard to the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, that the House was justified in giving the Government the odd million, but he only proposed to reduce the Vote by £1:2,000,000. It was because of the bravery, kindness, and courtesy of the Boers, as shown by the correspondence of General Joubert to Sir George White on the occasion of the death of the lamented soldier, General Symons, that the Irish Members protested against the war, and under the circumstances it was hard for the Irish not to sympathise with then). Under the Convention of 1884 they were given their freedom, and Great Britain through her Ministers admitted that she had no right to interfere with the internal affairs of the country. The franchise was an internal matter, but, even if it was not, before the war broke out an offer was made to Great Britain to reduce it from fourteen to five years, which was the same term which this country extended to aliens who desired to become citizens. But in Ireland the case was different: this country had for years and years denied the people the franchise, and they could not forget that Ireland once had a parliament and freedom like the Transvaal. That freedom was taken from them, and though they were not strong enough to regain their independence, they could
  450
  not but feel for a brave people whose only crime was that they were fighting in defence of their country and their liberty. If the franchise was the grievance which had brought about the war, why was it not made a grievance by Germany and America, both of whom had many subjects in the Transvaal? They did not intervene to redress that grievance, for the simple reason that they had not the same ambition to possess the gold mines, which underlay the action of Great Britain. What would be the position of this country when the war was over, even supposing the Orange Free State and the Transvaal were annexed? How were we going to recoup ourselves for the expense? Were the people of those countries to be taxed for the war, and the tax collected by keeping an army there twice as large as it had been necessary to keep in Ireland since she had been robbed of her parliament? Ireland had been subservient to this country because she could see no way out of her difficulty. All her brawn and muscle had been driven from the land, but every one who had been compelled to seek a home abroad had multiplied, and for every ten they could now count in foreign lands—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into the history of Ireland to illustrate the state of South Africa.
  MR. FLAVINonly desired to illustrate the circumstances which compelled Irish Members to vote against the policy of the Government in the prosecution of the war. Although Ireland had been subservient to this country the Boers would not be. Men there had left their all in order to defend their country, and in many cases the women had gone to the front as well as the men, and there was no such splendid patriotism as that which prompted the women of a country to fight for its freedom beside their husbands and their sons. It was said that the war was entered into in order to obtain freedom, justice, and fair play. If that was so, there was an appendage to the British Empire much more nearly situated to Great Britain than was the Transvaal, which might well be given civil rights and civil liberty—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that there is a Standing

  451
  Order against irrelevancy and tedious repetition.
  MR. FLAVIN: My point, Sir, is that if this war is undertaken with the view of establishing equal justice and civil rights, and the platform of the Government is equal rights and civil liberty, that policy might be extended to portions of the Empire more nearly situated to this country—
  *MR. SPEAKER: And that is exactly what I pointed out was irrelevant.
  MR. FLAVIN: I do not desire to pursue a controversial subject. I will merely point out that there are many hardships from which Ireland suffers which the Government refuse to redress, and therefore hon. Members who represent Ireland will protest by their voices and their votes against the sum asked for by the motion before the House being granted to the Government. The great danger to the British Empire is that it is like a long rope on which a continued strain will be kept. A breakdown will come at some time or another. As soon as those two Republics come under British rule, where arc you going to get compensation? If it be true that the inhabitants of the Free State and the Transvaal burghers have sold their rights in the mines to capitalists in France, Germany, and Russia, I ask the Government what position will they find themselves in when the war is over. Up to now no foreign Power has had any direct interest in those Republics. If Continental capital is invested there, is it not common-sense to believe that the moment you are victorious representations will be made by the ambassadors of France, Germany, and Russia to protect the interests of their capitalists who have invested in those countries? Then how will the Government get compensation for the war? I have only one opinion of the war—that it is unnecessary and unjust, that it is an inhuman war against liberty, and that it is a war which is carried on not to give equal liberty or civil rights to the inhabitants of the Transvaal, but to take away their independence, for the sake of capturing the gold there is in the country.
  *MR. TULLY: I rise to second the reduction. On this question of the war we have been absolutely straight;
  452
  we have been against the war all the time, and will remain so. We in Ireland know what will be the results of the policy you are pursuing in the Transvaal. The policy you are now pursuing in the Transvaal is the policy you pursued in Ireland, and the same results will be achieved. I am afraid the policy of Her Majesty's Government will be to create another Ireland in South Africa. The purport of this Vote is to give £13,000,000 to the War Office to expend on men, armaments, and munitions of war. I ask hon. Gentlemen, do they think the War Office as it is managed at present is a Department to which they can safely entrust the expenditure of these millions of money? Are even hon. Members on the opposite side of the House satisfied the War Office has done everything it should do to prosecute the war? I join with the hon. Member who I has just spoken in thinking that the War Office is absolutely incompetent, and, instead of giving them £13,000,000, £1,000,000 is enough, and under the circumstances too much. The entire action of the "War Office in connection; with the arming of the troops who are under the British flag has been absolutely: wrong from beginning to end. Take the case of the different weapons put into the hands of the soldiers. It has been left for the Imperial Yeomanry to find out that the rifles were sighted absolutely wrong. Why did not the members of the War Office, who spend their time mostly in playing golf, polo, or cricket, discover this? Some official in the War Office must be responsible for this; and I hope the Under Secretary of State for War will tell us who was the official who had charge of the department in which the rifles were sighted, and who allowed the troops to lie sent to the front; with rifles which would not hit a haystack accurately at 700 yards. After all, we Irish Members and our constituents have to pay more than our share of this money, and we expect when you put rifles into the hands of Irish soldiers and send them out to fight your battles you will at least give them good tools. I pass from that to the question of the artillery. I have been reading the despatches of the generals, and I find it stated by Sir George White and General Yule that in the battles referred to by the correspondents your I artillery, on which you relied to wipe out i the Boers, has been outranged and out-

  453
  classed by that of your enemy. This is a very serious question, and one which members of the Opposition have not raised properly. You claim to be the greatest manufacturing nation of the world, and yet when you are tested by these pastoral people, these peasants and farmers whom you describe as ignorant and lazy, you find that they have superior guns. Not only is your military prestige gone, but if your prestige as a manufacturing people is to rest on this question of good Artillery, your manufacturing prestige is gone also. You have been nearly five months at war, and the only thing you have been able to do is to relieve a city in your own territory. That is paraded as a great victory. Reference has been made by the war correspondents to one particular gun. They have referred to the quick-firing gun that fires one pound shells, the Maxim-Vickers gun. This gun has shaken the nerves of your troops, and has had a very material effect in preventing the British advance. Up to the present there has been nothing like this description of gun on the British side. It has been stated in the papers that the patents of that gun were offered to the War Office in 1892, and that they would not buy them. The result was that they were bought by President Kruger and his friends, who have shown more intelligence and far-sightedness than the British authorities. We are entitled to have a straight answer from the Under Secretary of State for War why the patents of that gun were rejected in 1892. I am anxious to know whether it was not a question of secret commission or secret royalties which led to the rejection of that gun by the War Office. We also find that you are out-classed in the matter of the larger guns, the Creusot guns. I have seen it stated that this, has not been so much a struggle between Briton and Boer as between British and French artillery. The Boers have secured the best French artillery, guns which they can move about and which have a range of 9,000 yards. From my reading of these technical matters, the great difficulty in connection with long-range guns is the question of the carriage. I believe the French workmen at the Creusot works, through their ingenuity, have discovered various mechanical means by which they can mount a gun on a light carriage that will carry an extra range. It has been stated
  454
  in the Daily Mail that when the war broke out the Boer Government had an order at the Creusot works for 80 guns. The impression seemed to have got abroad that you would get hold of Delagoa Bay, and that these guns could not be sent to the Transvaal. It was stated that when the war broke out there were 80 of these guns for sale at the Creusot works, and that some private gentleman offered to buy them, but that the officials of the War Office—whether influenced by secret royalties or not, I do not know—negatived this, and did not allow it to take place. The Financial Secretary said there was no foundation for the statement of the Daily Mail, and I suppose I may take that as an absolute denial. I find further that it is stated in the papers that your Government has been getting Italians to buy Creusot guns for you, and that these guns will be used in the war. I think it would be a breach of the laws of neutrality to utilise another Government to purchase Creusot guns, and then use them against the Transvaal. It is very important that we should get some information on that point. Now I come to the question of the cordite powder which you are using in your rifles. Cordite is a recent invention. I believe smokeless powder first came out on the Continent, and that it was not until two years after it came into use in the Continental armies that the British War Office discovered there was such a thing. When the British War Office thought they would go in for smokeless powder, I believe they issued advertisements to and invited tenders from inventors. In reply to that advertisement seventeen or eighteen inventors sent in specifications for a smokeless powder. There was a committee of three experts appointed to examine these different specifications. These experts were Sir Frederick Abel, Professor Dewar, and Professor Dupné. This committee examined the specifications and tenders sent in by the inventors, and decided that none of them came up to their requirements. What happened? Six months afterwards we find Sir Frederick Abel, who was the head of this committee to examine the tenders sent in by foreign and home inventors, takes out a patent for a powder of his own. He was paid by the Government to examine these things. The present Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who deals without gloves with officials who are

  455
  guilty of shady transactions, raised this question of cordite in the House, and said that cordite was a bad powder, and that Sir Frederick Abel was to get a royalty of 10d. per thousand cartridges and £10 per ton of guncotton. The Financial Secretary of the Treasury further said that Sir Frederick Abel picked the brains of these foreign and home inventors for the purpose of taking out the patent for this powder. If cordite was the useful powder it was claimed to be, at least it should have been kept a secret by the Government. But what did these experts do? They took out patents for this cordite in foreign countries. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it was monstrous that men occupying an official position should betray this invention to foreign countries. The hon. and gallant Member for one of the divisions of Essex also declared that this was a scandalous transaction in which Sir Frederick Abel was employed. I may mention incidentally that sitting on a Committee upstairs in which we inquired into the question of petroleum, we found Sir Frederick Abel's action with regard to the Hash point of petroleum as shady and indefensible as his action in connection with cordite. I do not find the transactions with regard to the foreign patents have been very profitable. It was stated by foreign inventors at the time, and also by some inventors in this country, that cordite was inferior to the powders in use on the Continent, and that the first great war in which you came into conflict with people armed with modern weapons you would find your weapons inferior in carrying power. It has been stated that your rifles were not carrying within 800 yards as far as the Mauser rifles of the Boers, and that your artillery of equal weight will not carry the same distance One of the explanations of that is that you have this inferior powder, cordite. It is owing to these secret commissions and royalties that an inferior powder has been passed off on the people of this country. I say that is a shameful and scandalous transaction. We heard hon. Members tonight talking about Tammany, but I think you may search the annals of Tammany in vain for any such gigantic scandal or fraud as that which has been perpetrated on the taxpayers in the case of this powder, cordite. To show how far they are carrying these transactions I find that one of them, Professor Anderson,
  456
  who claimed to have an invention for machinery in connection with cordite, was a member of the firm of Easton and Anderson, and when called on by the Government to resign his shares or give up his position, he resigned his shares. But how? By giving them over to his wife or son. That is stated on the authority of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury. You laughed and spoke a great deal about the French generals and officials who betrayed the secrets of the French War Office, but, viewed in the light of the history of this war, and putting the transactions of your own War Office side by side with those of the French War Office, you have not very much to be proud of. We object to this Vote of £13,000,000 not only as Irishmen, but also on its merits, and we ought not to be asked to place the money in the hands, of officials who have acted as have the officials in the War Office. There is also another powder for which you claimed extraordinary properties, namely, lyddite. It was expected that one lyddite shell would kill an acre of Boers. In fact, it was made a ground of rejoicing that General Joubert was said to have written to Sir George White, protesting against the use of this horrible explosive, and there wore also said to lie complaints with regard to its use at the first battle of that wonderful general and military genius, Lord Met linen. But as far as I have read about the war, various Boer generals, after seeing the explosion of these shells, have come to the unanimous conclusion that lyddite is no good. It reminds me of a story I have hoard in Ireland of a mail who had one son, "who," he said, "is the grandest son on earth; he has only one fault—he is no good." And so this lyddite; it is the grandest powder in the world, but it is no good. It was stated the other day that when on their first trip down the river, in their attempt to relieve Lady-smith, General Buller's army made one of the mountains absolutely black by the use of this lyddite. But a friend of mine who knows about, such things told me that when lyddite explodes as it should do it gives off little or no smoke; it is only when it is rotten it smokes so. If that is so we can understand the opinion of the Boer generals. You expect to get recruits in Ireland when the people know that they will get bad guns, bad artillery and rotten powder.

  457
  Yon might as well ask men with blackthorns to face Mauser rifles as to ask soldiers with inferior weapons to fight against the first-class equipment of the Boer Republics. As we have to pay more than our share of the expense of your mistakes in these matters, we have a right to protest against and to expose these blunders. I hope that some Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House will have the courage to say a word against these disgraceful transactions. The other day, in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, the Leader of the House plainly hinted that you were going to arm the Zulus so that they could be used in this war. ["No."] It does not require much intelligence to know the meaning of that statement. The one thing that can most excite the Dutch, especially in your own colonies, is the arming of the natives. To use their own words, it would be letting hell loose. I suppose to-night we are voting the money that will pay for some of those arms which are to be given to the natives who are then to be let loose on Christians, to carry the spirit of outrage of the worst and vilest kinds into the homes and families of these poor farmers who are defending their liberty. For five months the daily bulletin with regard to your soldiers has been "beaten, beaten, beaten." Now, as a final resource, you are going to call on these Zulus, arm them, and let them loose to uphold the honour of the Union Jack. On all these grounds I object to this Vote for the prosecution of this iniquitous and immoral war.
  Amendment purposed—
  "To leave out £13,000.000.' and insert '£1.000,000,"—(Mr. Flarin)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That £13,000,000' stand part of the Resolution.'
  *MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have already spoken frequently on this question, and no doubt hon. Members might consider that I have protested enough. When the first Vote for £10,000,000 came before Parliament last session I spoke and protested against it on every possible
  458
  occasion. Nothing fills me with greater gratification than that recollection, because everything that has occurred during the last five months has justified the course I then adopted, and has encouraged me to make at every stage during the present session an equally energetic protest against the prosecution' of this war. I have no doubt that, to say the least of it, it must be an irritating experience for British Members of Parliament to be called upon to listen night after night to speeches of the character made by Irish Members. We are subjected sometimes to a great deal of adverse criticism both inside and outside this House, but hon. Members must recollect that if they are obliged to listen to these continual protests it is after all but the result of the system under which this so-called United Kingdom is governed, and that if one portion of the Kingdom is governed against its will hon. Members must not be surprised, and really ought not to protest, if the representatives of that portion speak as their constituents desire, even though the sentiments expressed be not in accordance with English views. It is not a pleasant thing for anybody—not even an Irish Member of Parliament—to speak in an assembly of this kind, or, indeed, in any assembly, against the general sense and opinion of those whom he is addressing. If we do so it is only because we are fulfilling our duty to our constituents. It is often said that we oppose those Votes because of a persistent enmity towards England, which nothing can allay or destroy. Last session I heard an English Member of Parliament say, "Oh, we do not believe you are so sincerely upon the side of the Boers in this matter, because we have heard you make similar speeches in sympathy with other people with whom England has been at war. In every case you are against England. It is not a genuine sympathy with the Boers that compels you to take the course you have adopted, but rather an unaccountable, almost insane, idea of always opposing England." That is not the case. I represent one of the most national constituencies in Ireland, the people in which have always distinguished themselves by their devotion to the national cause—the constituency which vindicated the right of national opinion by returning to this House many years ago Daniel O'Connell, and which,

  459
  when their representative was not allowed to take his seat because he refused to take the oath of allegiance, which cast aslur on the Catholic religion to which he belonged, returned him again. I say that the Nationalists of County Clare, whom I represent, in their present feeling against the war and in the sentiments they desire me to express, are not animated by any bigoted hostility against England, but simply by the merits of this case. They believe that no just grounds exist for this war, that it might have been avoided by ordinarily good diplomacy, and that if the Government had acted in a conciliatory way all this bloodshed and loss of treasure would have been saved. If England were at war in some just cause, such as the liberation of some struggling people from intolerable oppression, we, although our relations with England are strained because of the system under which we are governed, would give this country our cordial support. If at the time of the horrible o atrocities in Armenia this country had embarked upon a war and had used the sword in the cause of those persecuted Christians against the Turks, the Irish people would have been in sympathy with you. Even though nothing was done for the Armenians, when Great (Britain did take action to protect the inhabitants of Crete, the Trish people endorsed the Cretan policy because they believed you were in the right. It is in the nature of Irishmen to be always against England, but let England do justice and light for freedom in any part of the world and Irishmen will be ready to back her. We object to this Vote not merely because the war is waged by England—though, goodness knows, we in Ireland have no reason to wish for the: success of your arms or to desire glory to attend the progress of your Imperialistic designs—but because, having studied the history of South Africa, we have come to the conclusion that these small Dutch Republics have been treated with invariable injustice, not only lately, but from the very day when England first landed in the Cape of Good Hope nearly a century ago. That our sympathy with the Dutch in this matter is no new-formed growth is shown by the fact that nearly twenty-five years ago one of the strongest protests over made by an Irish Member in this House was made by the late
  460
  Charles Stewart Parnell at the time of the annexation of the Transvaal. He it was who placed on the Paper a resolution affirming the inalienable right of the Dutch to rule according to their own ideas the land they had carved out for themselves, and it is only in pursuance of the policy then laid down of vindicating liberty in South Africa that Irish Nationalists Members stand up to-night to protest against this unequal and inglorious struggle which is so disastrously proceeding. I endeavoured to point out last session that a lamentable ignorance prevailed in this country with regard to the true state of affairs in South Africa. I have never set up to be a prophet, but on reading over some of the speeches I made last session as reported in Hansard, I really feel as if I had at that time had some sort of prophetic spirit. English Members seemed to think the war would be merely a matter of a mouth or so that an army corps would be sent out and after a little trouble all would be over. It was said that the population of the Transvaal was not as large as that of some of our large provincial towns, and there would be no difficulty in overcoming such a people. That was the spirit that animated the House of Commons, and how much more was it the spirit of the "man in the street," who had not the same opportunity of judging as to facts as Members of the House of Commons? But what did I toll the House? I said that in entering upon this war you had not merely to deal with the population of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but that the first British gun that was fired would call into being the hostility, either latent or active, of every man of Dutch blood in the Cape of Good Hope from the Zambesi to Cape Town. I was laughed at then, but was I not absolutely correct? ["No!"] Oh, very well. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that that has not turned out to be true. Take up any newspaper you like to-day, and what will you find? You will find that in large districts the Dutch are either in open rebellion or in sullen disaffection against your rule, and that amongst them are smouldering the fires of discontent, which is only a natural state of things when their own kith and kin are subjected to the onslaughts you are making against them. If I had thought that such a proposition would have been denied, I could have

  461
  brought down countless extracts from authorities to prove the truth of my statement. I will give one instance from the papers of this very day. When the news of the relief of Kimberley was received we are told that the people of Cape Town went mad with joy, that the British people of various places exhibited every sign of rejoicing. Rut while the British inhabitants decked their houses with flags and gave the High Commissioner an ovation to show their loyalty and delight, you have this remarkable fact—that no single sign of rejoicing came from any official source on the part of the Government of Cape Colony; there were no Hags over any public governmental buildings in Cape Town to denote rejoicing; nor were there any of those marks of exultation and victory such as would be seen in this country. Why? Because the Government is a Dutch Government because the Prime Minister is a Dutchman; because the majority of the Parliament are Dutch, representing a majority of the people who are Dutch. If you have a difficulty in carrying this war to a successful issue it will not be because of the small populations of the Boer Republics, but because, in striking the match of Ayar in South Africa, you have not only attacked the homes of the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but you have aroused natural resentment and indignation in the hearts of the people of Dutch blood throughout the whole length and breadth of South Africa. What is to happen when this money is spent and you enter victoriously into Pretoria? As has been already said, you will create in South Africa another Irish nation, but one much more difficult to deal with than the one on the other side of St. George's Channel. Our country is a small country close to your doors, but yet you have had difficulty enough in ruling it century after century. In South Africa, be it not forgotten, outside the urban populations the people are almost exclusively Dutch. The British people have centred almost entirely round the towns where the mines were in operation and have occupied themselves with industrial pursuits. Leave Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, and the large towns of South Africa, and go into the parts of the country which really provide the backbone of the whole district, and what will you find? I challenge contradiction when I say that nine-tenths of the rural.
  462
  population are people of Dutch blood,, speaking the Dutch language. When you have taken the centres of population what are you going to do. This sum of £13,000,000 is but a flea-bite in comparison with the enormous amounts this country will have to vote year after year, not to prosecute the war, not to carry your flag to Pretoria, but to keep it there. These countries are mountainous countries; the people are largely mountaineers: they are naturally a guerilla force; and you will have to garrison those countries from end to end to keep rebellion from flaming out time after time. Some hon. Members seem to think that once Pretoria is taken everything is settled and there will be no further trouble. Once you have taken Pretoria your troubles will begin. Even though you kill every able-bodied inhabitant and leave no adult man alive in the Republics, I say that the boys and the children who are growing up will be taught by their mothers and will learn from the traditions and history of their country that their fathers were slaughtered and their land overrun by the British, and it is not the enmity of this generation, but of generation after generation of the Dutch that you will have to face. But the saddest and most miserable reflection about the whole of the transaction is the thought of how easily the conflict might have been avoided. I am not going into any discussion of the negotiations which immediately preceded the war, but I say that those negotiations were brought to a point when by a little conciliation and consideration the Government of the Transvaal could have been induced to give to this country everything that was desired. When make that statement I do not base it on the opinion of any mere Irish Member, but upon the opinion of such men as the late Member for Plymouth and the Member for Bodmin. Hon. Gentlemen opposite sneer and jeer at those names, but there is not one of those whom I noticed jeering who can ever hope to point to such a public record in the service of their country as can the two Gentlemen to whom I have referred. Both of them are statesmen, supporters of the Unionist Government, and opponents of the claims of Ireland; but I ground my assertion that those negotiations could have been brought to a successful issue on the statements of those two eminent and respected English statesmen, whose action, will be commended by the British people

  463
  long after the authors of this war have been condemned. Of course, this money will be voted, and the war will go on. The only consolation we have is the conviction, amounting to almost absolute certainty, that when all this ginger-bread enthusiasm for military affairs, this beating of drums, these attempts to get recruits, and these military pageants have come to an end, when John Bull, having calmed down from his fit of militarism, comes to look at the bill, a serious verdict will be passed upon the gentlemen who have provided the entertainment. If there was one part of the British Empire where care and caution ought to have been exercised it was South Africa. It is the most vulnerable part of your Empire. I n every other portion of your Empire you have nothing to fear, because you have given them Home Rule. But deny one of those colonies what you deny Ireland, and see how many men they would then send to South Africa. But unhappily for you, when the moment of crisis came, when a strong hand was wanted, when a level head was required, you found at the head of your affairs not a statesman in whom the British people could have reliance, but a gentleman who has been everything in turn and nothing long, and whose very personality was obnoxious to the Dutch population in South Africa.The Dutch have a rigid belief—whether well-founded or not I do not know—that but for the Colonial Secretary's connivance there would have been no Jameson raid, and if there had been no Jameson raid there would have been no war. It is the opinion of Unionists opposite and throughout the country, that if Lord Salisbury or the Duke of Devonshire, or indeed any other prominent Unionist statesman, had been conducting the negotiations with President Kruger there would have been no war. ["No, no!"] But the negotiations failed because they were conducted by a man who could not keep his temper. ["No, no!"] I have been seventeen years in the House of Commons, and I have always noticed that when anything particularly true is said it is objected to. That probably accounts for the fact that my statements are very often objected to. I say that it is the popular belief throughout the country that if the negotiations had been conducted by any other man they would have been successful. It is an elementary principle that must be admitted, that if
  464
  you are going to negotiate your representative should be a man whose past has been completely free from any suspicion; or of any conduct likely to arouse suspicion in the minds of those with whom I you are to negotiate. The one man in the whole British Empire of whom President Kruger and the Transvaal had most suspicion was the Colonial Secretary. The wisest suggestion that has been made in these debates was that of Sir Edward I Clarke, that even though this war be carried on there would be a better chance of a permanent peace after its conclusion if the Colonial Secretary was removed from his position and another Minister put in his place.* However, what is done cannot be undone. This disastrous war I will continue. Your big battalions will no doubt bear these men down. In the course of time you will sweep the country from end to end. You will do practically as you please with these two small nations. It would be strange if it were otherwise, seeing that you have out there an armed soldier for every Dutchman, Dutchwoman, and Dutch child in the two States. If I was an English Member I would protest against the war as being dangerous to the Empire, and as calculated to bring unnecessary expense upon the taxpayers of the country. But I do not look at it from the English point of view. The jingo feeling is so strong that, with two or three exceptions, even the strongest Radicals are stricken dumb. Those who ought to speak in favour of peace, retrenchment, and reform are silent, and the spirit of Mr. Gladstone has departed from them. It is a deplorable thing that no Member on the front Opposition bench should be found sufficiently wedded to Liberal ideas to stand I up and manfully protest against this war. Even if English Unionist Members are determined to give this money they ought to take the advice of my hon. friend the Member for South Leitrim, and see that those who will expend the money are properly qualified to do so. We are going to give £1:3,000,000 into the hands of the present War Office officials. There is not a country in Europe that would not have turned out every official at the War Office after the bungling of the last few months. Everything has been bungled; nothing has been right. Those officials
  See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii. p.494.

  465
  have proved themselves to be absolutely incapable. That is not merely the opinion of an Irish Member. It is the view of every newspaper in London and the country, particularly of the great Unionist organs, such as The Times and the Standard. In leading article after leading article they have declared the War Office to be in competent, and denounced the plans and deficiencies of that Department. That being the case, it is a scandal and a shame that the spending of this enormous sum should be entrusted to such a Department. I object to this Vote because it is unfair to. Ireland, because it is unfair to the toiling masses of the people of this country, because it is un-Christian, because it is an, outrage upon Christianity, that when Members leave this House to-night, when the light is extinguished, and the cry, "Who goes home?" is heard, you will, after passing hundreds of miserable half-starved beings, sleep the sleep of the just, reflecting that while millions of your own countrymen are in distress, and you will not vote a penny for their relief, you lightly and freely in an hour or two vote £13,000,000 of the taxes of the people of the country, not to build up prosperity or to relieve distress, but to carry on an unholy, bloody, and cruel war, which is causing misery broadcast throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. That is a worthy action with which to wind-up the nineteenth century. We, at least, who represent Ireland, a small and weak nation, are proud in the face of the world to be able to say that when this infamy was sought to be perpetrated we had the courage and hardihood to stand up for what we believed to be the right, even though we were in a minority.
  MR. DILLON (): There are one or two questions I wish to ask the Under Secretary for War if he is going to speak in this debate to-night. First of all, we ought to have some details of the liablity of this country with regard to the colonial and Volunteer forces. I understand that a portion of the expenses of the very large body of colonial forces now serving in South Africa is found under this Vote. If that be so, I would ask, what is the scale of pay allowed to these colonial forces, and how does it compare with that of soldiers sent out from this country? I read the other day that the terms offered to troopers in a force known as Bailey's
  466
  Horse were 12s. a day. Of course it must lie taken into account that each trooper had to provide his own horse, but even then 12s. a day is an enormous sum to offer these men who are called out primarily—and this is the only purpose I saw mentioned—for the defence of their own homes. When we hear so much talk and brag about the extraordinary patriotism displayed by what are called the loyalists of South Africa, I should like to know what is their daily pay, and also what is the pay of the poor unfortunate burghers who are defending their homes in the Transvaal. I venture to say that the latter get no pay whatsoever, and it seems tome to be an extraordinary thing that it should require 12s. a day to induce these loyal colonists to enlist. We are entitled to get much more detailed information as to the proportion of these charges to be borne by the taxpayers of this country and the proportion to be borne by the colonies. The next point upon which I desire information is as to the character of the troops which are being raised under this great scheme. We are asked to grant the War Office £13,000,000 to carry out this great military scheme. I do not propose, in dealing with the character of the troops, to use my own language. Very sinister rumours have been spread in Ireland—I do not know with what foundation, but I have heard them alleged as facts—as to the character of some of the men who are being enrolled by the War Office. I read in one of the chief organs of the war party in London, a Unionist newspaper, these words, speaking of the scheme for which we are called upon to vote £13,000,000—
  "These schemes, after all, are nothing more than a makeshift, and do not take us one step nearer to what we want in this country, a system that will give us what we have never yet had—a regular and constant supply of recruits. The War Minister does not seem to realise that ever since the introduction of a standing Army we have had to resort to all sorts or expedients with a view to raising troops. We have had to offer high bounties, resort to impressment, attract men from the Militia, and, as a last resource, to drain the hulks and empty the prisons…. "
  That is not my language, but that of the Globe newspaper. It is said in Ireland that convicts and prisoners in gaols have been approached and offered pardons if they will volunteer for South Africa. If that is true, there is no language too

  467
  strong to condemn such conduct. I now come to another point. I read with feelings of intense indignation and regret a reply given by the First Lord of the Treasury on Thursday last to a question with reference to the arming of the natives. During the autumn session that question was debated, and the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a question of mine, gave an honourable undertaking that in this war no coloured troops would be used. In stronger language still, the Under Secretary for War took up the position that to use coloured troops would be a monstrous and indefensible action. The right hon. Gentleman took the position that it would be bad policy not only for the future of South Africa and the feelings of the people with whom the British must live as neighbours after this war is over, but that it would be bad policy as regards feeling in Europe and America, because it would outrage the conscience of the whole civilised world. The day is gone by when any nation, in my judgment, can with impunity use native or coloured troops against white men, and if you depart from that principle you will make one of the most ghastly departures ever recorded in the whole course of your history. What, however, was the position taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury the other day? He distinctly threatened that this rule would be departed from, and ho intimated that rumours had reached this country that the Boers had endeavoured either to attack the natives or to incite them against the English in this war. I protest against this statement; I protest against the crediting of these rumours. One of the most painful characteristics of the whole of these transactions has been that from the first day of this war there has been directed against the Boer people the greatest deluge of calumnies and lies ever directed against any people. Every form of outrage and cruelty and barbarity has been charged against them, and it is to the everlasting shame of the press of this country that some influential newspapers lent themselves to the dissemination of those charges. I have seen it stated over and over again that your troops had to face showers of Dim Dum and explosive bullets, and that English women and children have been fired upon, and dozens of other brutal charges have been made, all of which, however, have been disproved, and now
  468
  it has been placed upon record beyond all question that no war has ever been conducted on principles of greater humanity and kindness than this war has been conducted by the Boers. I have a collection of testimony from British officers as to the personal and other kindnesses which they have received at the hands of the Boers. With reference to explosive bullets, it will lie seen in the deeply interesting accounts by Mr. Treves and Sir William MacCormac published in the British Medical Journal, that it is a constant subject of remark by these great English surgeons that the wounds are so amazingly small that the whole science of military surgery will be revolutionised by this war. That is testimony in reply to a few of these outrageous charges. What proof have you that the Boers are using armed natives? I have not seen the charge stated except by one correspondent, who declared that in recent engagement on one of the last hills from which the British were driven on the other side of the Tugela some of the officers said there were armed natives with the Boers. That is the only definite statement that has been made, and can anyone deny that the British have used armed natives? It has been stated over and over again and not attempted to be denied that Colonel Baden-Powell in the early days of the siege of Mafeking—I am quoting now from English newspapers, not from the remonstrance which General Joubert addressed to the various Governments of Europe—organised a corps of Cape boys and natives which did splendid service in one or two of the sorties from Mafeking. It is also not denied that Chief Linchwe, encouraged by the English and no doubt furnished with arms by Colonel Plumer and other military officers in Rhodesia, attacked the Boers. But as regards the future of South Africa, and the future position of this country in European and American opinion, the grave question of the use of natives, of the toleration of native interference in this war, stands at present in this position, that so far as I have been able to observe, from very close and constant study of the letters from British correspondents, only one allegation has I been made by one correspondent that there were armed natives with the Boers, and that was in the rush of battle, whereas on the other hand specific allegations have been made, not only

  469
  by General Joubert but by British correspondents, that armed natives were used in the defence of Mafeking and that Chief Linchwe was encouraged to attack and did attack the Boers. I think, therefore, I am entitled to take this opportunity of protesting in the strongest possible manner against the use of any of this money for the purpose of arming the natives. I claim and desire at the hands of the Under Secretary a renewal of the pledge given by the First Lord of the Treasury, because after the right hon. Gentleman's answer the other day I have lost faith in his pledge, and I fear that the Bechuanas and the Zulus, with the invasion of their territory as an excuse, may be encouraged to take part in the war. It is no justification for encouraging the natives to attack the Boers that their territory is invaded, as long as they themselves are not attacked. The English are quite competent to meet the Boers in Zululand as well as in Natal. The logic of the case is perfectly clear. If the advance of the Boer forces into Zululand would justify the incitement of the natives to attack them, the advance of the Boor forces into Natal would be an equal justification, because the population of Natal is mainly composed of coloured people, consisting of one Englishman to about seven natives. Therefore, when the Boers advanced into Natal they advanced into a country mainly populated by natives. Was that held to be an excuse for inciting the natives to rise in defence of their own kraals? Therefore, there is no real excuse for inciting the natives to rise in Zululand and not in Natal, because for practical purposes the two countries are precisely similar, being both British territory and both populated mainly by natives. There is one point I desire to mention, and that is a question which has been raised in my mind by two remarkable incidents. The suffering produced by this war has been terrible both in this country and in Ireland, and in the Transvaal, of course, the suffering has been infinitely greater. I was very much struck by receiving yesterday a most remarkable document from the Associated Poor Law Boards of Great Britain—I saw no such appeal from Ireland—asking me to use my influence in this House to get some aid from the Imperial Treasury for the widows and orphans of the men killed in the war, who are now distressed and seeking out-door relief. I want to know from the Under Secretary
  470
  before we vote this money what is to be done for the widows and orphans of these men? Many of the men who have been killed are my own countrymen, and we all remember recently the scene which occurred when an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite made an outrageous charge against the Irish people."*
  Undoubtedly the Irish have suffered a great deal more in these fights than the English. When the last returns were made up, as far as my memory serves me, the proportion was nearly twice as many Irishmen killed and wounded in proportion in their number in South Africa as Englishmen. That is a remarkable incident, and of course it increases the amount of suffering in Ireland, and it made us rather irritable when we were informed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Irish never attacked in front. That is one incident which induces me to ask the representative of the Government what the Government mean to do to supplement the charitable funds being raised for the widows and orphans of the men who have been killed, and also for the men who have been maimed for life in this war. The second incident is very remarkable and striking, and is indeed nothing short of ' a public scandal. It was published in. the Irish papers the day before yesterday. A young Reserve man employed in the town of Tralee was sent out to the war, and arrived home recently maimed for life: he has a wife and two children and has to depend for the remainder of his life on 6d. per day, the same pension which he had before he went to the war, with the difference that he is now crippled. It so happened that in the same week an Irish policeman who had retired on a pension of £60 a year, in consequence of some slight injury he got, suddenly bethought himself he would apply to the county court judge for compensation for a malicious injury, and this worthy policeman got £670 compensation, having already a pension from the Imperial Government of £60 a year, whereas the poor man from South Africa after fighting the battles of your Empire is put off with 6d. a flay for the remainder of his life. I want to know if that is justice, and how you are going to defend it? What is there so sacred in an Irish policeman that he should get a pension of £60 a year, and £670 in cash for an injury which, as far as I can gather
  See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., p. 534.

  471
  from the newspapers, was much less than that suffered by the poor soldier in the war? I say it is monstrous, and if you induce these men to fight your battles in South Africa you ought at least to have the decency when they come home maimed for life to keep them out of the workhouse. I think it is not to be wondered at that you have difficulty in getting recruits when the treatment you give to these unfortunate men is placed side by side with the treatment given to a policeman. There is one ether matter on which I think too much cannot be said in view of the feeling in Ireland as to the pressure which has been put on some of the Irish Militia regiments to volunteer. I do not pretend, I cannot pretend to know the whole truth of what has happened in this matter, but we know that the impression in Ireland is that these men have been entrapped. It is perfectly well known that in the case of the North Cork Militia the men I were absolutely ignorant of what they were doing, and had not the slightest intention of going to South Africa, when they were packed into a train and carried off. I hold a very strong view on this matter. I think no man, as long as you profess to have a voluntary system, ought to be sent out of the country to war until he has consented, and I want to know from the Under Secretary what is the machinery by which a regiment is called upon to volunteer, and what security have the public that each man is allowed to express his own view. I say distinctly we are entitled to raise this subject again and again until we have some security that every individual Militiaman shall have a choice as to whether he shall go to the war or not. I think that is a fair and reasonable demand, and one to which no soldier ought to object. It is all the more necessary to insist on this matter, because I saw in one of the newspapers an article headed "Treason in the Hanks," which called on the Government to instantly take the most stringent measures against a corporal in the North Louth Militia, because he had advised some of his comrades not to volunteer for the war. We were told the other day in this House that instructions were given to the officers that no compulsion was to be put on the men, but if we are now told that it is treason for a man to advise another not to enlist for foreign service, I should like to
  472
  know what the value of these instructions are. I think feeling in Ireland will demand some specific statement which will convince the people that these men have been fairly dealt with, and are going out of their own free will. In this war, as previous wars, you have found great difficulty in getting recruits. We have had speeches in this House, and also a remarkable speech in another place, which seemed to point directly at conscription, and really, judging from the advance of the military spirit in this House during tide last five or six years, I think we are within measurable distance of it. You have found that it is almost impossible, by the voluntary system, to fill the ranks of your Army with men of proper physique. I was reading yesterday in the Lancet a most interesting article on the physique of the Boers. The writer pointed out that taking the whole male Boer population between the ages of sixty-five and fifteen—and Mr. Winston Churchill, in his wonderful letters to the Morning Post, has told us that boys of the latter age have been picked up on the battlefield—it would, as regards physique, outdistance your Army of men picked in accordance with your standard. That is a pretty condition of things you have been brought to. I feel I would stray altogether outside the limits of order if I enlarged on a favourite subject of mine, namely, the abomination and infamy of the policy which has exterminated or driven out of Ireland, Scotland, and even England, the population which must be the basis of a real fighting force—namely, those who live in independence in their own country and till the land. You were never content until you had decimated the population, and you rejoiced when they fled by millions from Ireland. You would lie very glad to have some of them back now, and the time may yet come that when, in your extremity, owing to this same monstrous idea of Imperialism, which we hear on every side, you will have to make an ever increasing demand on the resources of the population to fill your Army, you will repent the brutal and savage way in which you destroyed the population of Ireland.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member who has just sat down began his speech by asking

  473
  whether I, as the Minister in charge, intended to speak in the course of the evening. I admit under ordinary circumstances and in any customary debate such a question might be put at a much earlier hour. I have, it is true, maintained my place on this bench from half past four until nearly half past eleven, but I think I have been amply justified in the course I have taken. I did not take that course in order to show any want of respect towards hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, who come here to express what, they tell us, are the views of their constituents, but I had to strike a, balance between what was due to the representatives of the Irish constituencies and what was due to the representatives of all the other constituencies in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for East Clare, who intervened twice in this debate, on both occasions frankly said he was well aware that he was out of touch with the sentiments of this House and of this country, but he claimed the right, since Ireland is represented in this Imperial Parliament, to give us what he told us were the views of his constituents. I admit the right of the hon. Member, but in my opinion the hon. Member is not entitled to demand that I should engage—if, indeed, I could hope to engage it upon such subjects—the attention of other hon. Members on such questions as Home Rule, the position of Ireland in the Empire, the Hon. Member's regret for the action in which we glory—of his own countrymen in South Africa, and many other kindred topics upon which he dwelt with regret, but upon some of which we dwell with exultation. It seemed to me that improper course was to listen with respectful silence to speeches which moved me to great pity. I cannot contemplate the position of Irish Members at this moment in the evolution of our Empire without feeling the greatest and most heartfelt regret, inasmuch as men of every religion and every race have found it possible—in spite perhaps of injustice, in spite perhaps of callousness on the part of the party which may have ruled at one time or the other in this country—subjects of the Crown in every part of Her Majesty's dominions have found it possible to take a corporate pride and joy in the gradual evolution of the Empire. I am not going into the reasons for this attitude, which seems so particular to Ireland. I
  474
  note, however, that whereas we have over and over again gone out of our way to stand in the white sheet of penitence, and to say that no doubt there were mistakes in the past, I have never heard one Irish Member in this House assume even hypothetically for the purposes of argument that ho or his predecessors had ever made one wrong turn in this game which has lasted so long. The hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs in one of his admirable books said that too many good fellows would be in the wrong if Rousseau were always in the right, and viewing in hasty historical retrospect the relations which have obtained between Ireland and this country, I really think it is—well—impossible according to the doctrine of chances that the English, Scottish, Welsh, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, the feudatory Princes of India, the Volunteers of Hong Kong, and everybody is wrong, and that the Irish Members in this House—not the Irish people, still less the Irish soldiers or the Irish Militia—are in the right and alone in the right. Since that is my view, I felt it was more consistent with it, and with what was due to hon. Members, to listen to them in silence. But then the hon. Member for East Mayo rose and said that he was going to leave? wide fields and address a few pointed questions to myself on this Vote. I own I prefer the speeches of the hon. Member for East Clare to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo. In the first place the hon. Member for East Mayo endeavoured to create a little difficulty over the rates of pay which were given to the colonial forces in South Africa, and he put forward some astonishing tale, of which I have no knowledge, that the members of some force arc in receipt of 12s. per day. I may tell the hon. Member that we are taking £52,000 for the payment of colonial troops in South Africa. It is difficult to give the exact particulars, since fresh troops are raised every day. A short time ago a thousand Colonial troops were raised in South Africa, and 5,000 to 6,000 troops came from other colonies, but both are increasing from day to day, and I cannot give the precise number at present.
  MR. DILLON: Does the Imperial Exchequer bear the whole cost?
  MR. WYNDHAM: In the case of troops coming from other colonies we are

  475
  paying them precisely the rates we give to our own soldiers. In the case of South African troops the question is more complicated because there have been in South Africa for some time colonial troops in receipt of different rates of pay, and it has been impossible and inexpedient to alter those rates at a moment's notice. As I have informed the House it seems to me we are approaching the time; when we shall be able to consider this question, which is one of the greatest moment to the Empire, calmly and dispassionately in consultation with the representatives of all our colonies. Upon that ground therefore, and on that ground alone, I decline to be drawn into logic-chopping over a difference of three-pence or sixpence as to the remuneration which men ought to receive who go to the front, or to affront people who offer troops, when troops are needed, by entering into long negotiations over the remuneration to be given to those troops. The hon. Member asked if we were reduced to such a state that we had to offer inducements to those who are incarcerated for their country's good to volunteer. What is the good of reading out highly-spiced reminiscences in a newspaper of the conditions which are alleged to have existed, not now, but a hundred years ago—a re-hash of passages from Macaulay and other writers who have themselves drawn a highly coloured I contrast between the past and the present? The hon. Member comes here and wags his head and tolls us on the authority of the Globe newspaper these things, and asks, "What guarantee can you give me that similar practices are not going on now?" The whole point of the article was to draw a contrast, and a just contrast, between the past and the present. I do not know whether I ought to follow the hon. Member in his attack on the press of this country. That is rather a wide turning movement. I do not think it will drive me from my kopje in defending the Vote. When the hon. Member goes out of his way to make that attack, I believe he will find that he has lost himself in the veldt. But the hon. Member did make an attack to which I am bound to reply. He was good enough to say that he had no longer any confidence in the pledge which I had given to this House, as to our actual intention of restraining the
  476
  natives of South Africa from taking part in the war.
  MR. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I said was that, after reading the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that under the present circumstances the Government might be compelled to reconsider, in the immediate future, the pledge they had given, I could no longer give them my confidence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If that is a withdrawal, I will not pursue the argument, because I feel it is useless to give further assurances to people who attach no value to what T have said.
  MR. DILLON: Nothing is further from my intention than to say that I could give no confidence to the hon. Member's personal statements.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Well, I withdraw that entirely; but the hon. Gentleman's, manner of presenting his case is rather difficult to understand. A distinct pledge was given in this House by myself that, so far from encouraging the natives of South Africa to take part in the war, the Government, through our Commissioner in Zululand and Basutoland, were doing their very best, under difficult circumstances, to prevent any such horrible occurrence taking place. I think it is within the knowledge of the House that that Commissioner, owing to his personal duty and to the influence he had acquired over the natives, had prevented a rising. It was; because the Boers were reported to be about to invade Zululand and attack the natives that a member of this Government replied to a question in the House that if the Boors did so it would be open to the natives to defend themselves. And what other statement could have been made? Yet the hon. Member, because of that statement, feels that he is entitled to say that he can no longer have any confidence in a pledge given some months ago. I am quite prepared to leave the matter where it stands. So long as we can keep the natives from taking part in this war we will spare no effort in attaining that object; but if the Boers, or, indeed, any other Power, attack the natives, we are not going to prevent those natives from defending themselves.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: With the object of making the point clear, I desire to ask whether it is not the fact that the Boers made an inroad into Zululand because a British column had gone into that country previously.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot answer the hon. Member on that point; but it is irrelevant to the answer I have given. My answer was, that if the Boers attacked the Zulus they were quite entitled to defend themselves. Then the hon. Member for East Mayo complained of the pensions and allowances to the widows and children of soldiers who had died in this war. I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to draw a distinction between the widows and children of Irish soldiers and those of English and Scotch soldiers.
  MR. DILLON: No. No distinction was drawn.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think the hon. Member should, because no distinction is really drawn. The whole case of pensions and allowances is, as the House is aware, governed by certain rules which are universal in their application. Most hon. Members who were present will recollect that we had recently an interesting debate on the subject of an attempt to reorganise the funds subscribed by charitable persons, both recently and in the past, for the benefit of the widows and other dependents of soldiers who died in war. The Government are about to appoint, even if they have not already appointed, a very strong Commission to inquire into the whole of this question, and we feel it would be a mistake to offer any pronouncement, or to make any promise on this subject, until we have had the advantage of hearing the conclusion at which these Commissioners have arrived. But should it prove to be the case, after the Commissioners have reported, that there is room for some subvention in addition on the part of the Government, that is a recommendation which the Government would consider most earnestly and carefully. The time has not yet come, however, to express any definite view on this question, but only to say it is one we regard as of great importance. The hon. Member concluded by bringing up again the question of pressure upon the Irish Militia. Well, I really despair of dis-
  478
  cussing the question with the hon. Member; we approach it from such different points of view. Our assumption—and I can give him evidence that that assumption is right—is that the Irish Militia regiments, and individual men of those regiments, are as eager as other Militia regiments and men to secure what is, after all, the crown of a soldier's profession. (HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!) The assumption of hon. Members from Ireland is that Irish Militia regiments and Irish Militiamen, of all people in the world, are dying to enjoy ease at home, while their comrades m arms arc winning glory in South Africa.
  MR. DILLON: Not at all. My assumption is that nine-tenths of the Irish Militiamen consider this war a most atrocious war.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: A robbers war.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Oddly enough, I am in absolute agreement with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, although I differ very much from his application of it. The hon. Member for Kilkenny asked the other day if the Government did not think it very wrong to put any pressure upon the men in the Militia when they were making up their minds upon so grave a matter as to whether they should serve in South Africa or remain at home. I think that no pressure ought to be put upon the men, and, as far as the Government are concerned, we have done all in our power to see that no pressure is put upon them. Can hon. Members for Ireland say the same? Probably hon. Members have no knowledge of the documents that are now littered about the Militia barracks of Ireland informing the men who arc having an opportunity given them of joining their comrades in South Africa that they are "all marked down for murder"; and hon. Members will perhaps disbelieve it, but it is true, that in one circular I have seen the priests are appealed to "not to abandon thousands of the poor to death and mutilation in a war of hell." Let me read this passage—
  "The curse of Ireland's martyred dead be on the Irishman, priest or layman, who allows the wretched Irish Militia to be trapped into slaughter"—
  [Cheers from the Irish benches.] Hon. Members cheer that; then do not let them

  479
  talk any more about pressure in this House. Sir, there has been no pressure on our part. That there has been pressure on the part of others I know, not only from these documents, but from a telegram I have received from an Irish regiment which, underpressure—under compulsion, I hold it—did not volunteer. [HON. MEMBERS on the Irish benches: What is the regiment?] I will not give you the regiment, but a telegram has been received from an Irish Militia regiment imploring us to allow them to re-consider their decision. But it is too late. This is not an unlimited opportunity. When all are striving for this great honour—[HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: Oh, oh!]—when the opportunity of accepting it is given as a reward for excellence in rotation of the regiments which stand highest in the credit of the War Office—when any regiment is over-persuaded, or compelled by those who agree with hon. Members opposite to refuse or miss their chance, that chance is not likely to return. Those Irish Militia regiments which have been deluded into missing their chance of going to the front now regret their action; while those regiments who withstood the seductive documents circulated amongst them, when asked to volunteer threw their caps up into the air with joy and cheered for the Ministry. I am persuaded that Irish soldiers, whether in the lane regiments or in the Militia battalions, need no guidance from hon. Members from Ireland when they are endeavouring to discover the path of duty, and that they, like many of their countrymen before them, have found the path of duty the road to honour and glory.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND (): The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War has had this session an unparalleled opportunity for exhibiting, to the delectation of the House, his undoubted powers as a speaker. No one has witnessed the development of these powers with greater interest and admiration than the Irish Members. But I may be allowed, with regret, to say that I think it is a mistake for him to adopt the very lofty tone he has done to-night. When the hon. Member regards the attitude of the Irish Members and a great portion of the Irish people towards the war with nothing but pity, I must be allowed to say he is
  480
  adopting an attitude which verges very nearly on the ridiculous. This debate has gone on practically on the same lines for over a week. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I am the first to admit it, and I take some pride in the fact that the opposition to this Vote has been mainly carried on by the Irish Members. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, quoting Rousseau's witty saying and applying it to Ireland, declared that Ireland must be wrong because so many good fellows are of the other way of thinking, and he had the audacity to cite in support of his interpretation the case of Canada. What is the ease of Canada? Until Canada got such a system of Home Rule as we demand for Ireland, it was a country which seethed with rebellion and sedition. The French Canadian population were granted Home Rule when they were actually in arms against this country, and does the Hon. Gentleman ask this House for a moment to believe that if the system which still exists in Ireland had continued in Canada, the slightest tokens of loyalty or support would have been given to Britain at the present moment? It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman in applying that witty saying of Rousseau to confine his view solely to the British Empire. Why does he not extend his view to the civilised world? If he does so, he will find that every nation in Europe except Turkey is against England in this war; and not only the opinion of every nation in Europe, but the undoubted opinion of the great mass of the people of the United States of America.—[HON. MEMBERS: NO, no!]—and I apply that witty remark of Rousseau to the Government of England to-day by saying that "there are too many good people in the world who would be wrong if you were right." I do not intend to delay the House on this occasion. I have said the opposition to this money Vote has come almost entirely from the Irish. Members, and I am proud of it. I know that our power in this House is limited; but if it were in our power we would not permit the Government to get a single farthing of this Vote. We are hampered in our action, and all we are able to do is to make it perfectly clear, and beyond all doubt, what the attitude of the Irish Members and people is in regard to this war. I think we have succeeded in our object. For my part, I see no particular use in continuing this debate for another

  481
  hour or two. The voting of this money is not the end of this matter. No one supposes that this thirteen millions will see us through this war, and therefore the subject will come up again and again before the House, and the Irish Members will continue at every step to make use at every power available under the Constitution to thwart the efforts of the Government to suppress the independence of the two South African Republics. The other day, when we asked that this war should be stopped, we were met by the argument that it was unreasonable to expect that the war should be stopped until the Boer invasion was repelled. I am sorry to say it is likely that that time may arrive soon; but when it does arrive I want to know what attitude other hon. Gentlemen will take? We Irishmen have been almost alone in the division lobby, and I assert that in the votes we have given we have been representing a considerable number of the Members of this House, who for one reason or another were either ashamed or afraid to vote in our lobby. I think there is very little doubt about that. If anyone looks through the division list he will see a remarkable absence of hon. Members. I hope when the time comes, it it ever does come, when the Boer invasion of British territory is repelled, that these hon. Members will take heart of grace, and join in our efforts to bring the war to a close on the basis of the independence of the two Republics. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] [Cheers and counter cheers.] I think it is rather unworthy of the House of Commons to deny assent to a statement of that kind. It ought never to be forgotten that the argument put forward at the commencement of this business was that the war was not a war of aggrandisement, but to obtain certain rights fur certain British subjects. But if hon. Members deny assent to my argument, then the character of the war is changed, and it becomes a war of aggression to seize the territories of the Republics. I know not what the future may have in store for us in this matter. My own belief is that this war, if you persist in your present attitude, will last a considerable time indeed, and that only when you begin the march to Pretoria the real trouble will commence. The taxpayers of the country will then find that, if the war is persisted in, it will cost not ten millions
  482
  nor twenty-three millions, but more than a hundred millions, and that the loss of life will reach fifteen thousand or twenty thousand men. I am profoundly convinced that the whole of the Government policy will end in disaster, and that there will come a reaction against their policy. When that reaction does come, when reason returns to her place, and the war fever, which is swaying the minds of the people in this country, is abated, I believe that Ireland and her national aspirations will not stand any worse chance because of this crisis, or because,, in spite of odium and misrepresentation inside and outside this House, she has lifted her voice on every occasion in defence of the liberties of the South African Republics.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): The Under Secretary of State for War displayed some ingenuity in his efforts to conceal the poverty of his arguments under the veil of pleasantry and good humour. I was very glad to find that the hon. Gentleman has a sense of humour, because it shows that he has at least a drop of Irish blood in his veins. The hon. Gentleman expressed great grief for the position which the Irish Members have taken up in this House in regard to the war in South Africa; but why should he lie surprised that the Irish Members are opposed to a war of this kind? Has he not read the history of Ireland, and does he know nothing of the condition of the Irish people for the last hundred years? Could he possibly imagine that the Irish people could join in approving the most iniquitous and atrocious war which ever England has provoked for the destruction of a free people? The hon. Gentleman also referred to that very delicate question of race against race in South Africa. When the First Lord of the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary plainly hinted the other day that the native races of South Africa would be instigated to fight against the Boers if occasion arose, I could not help being reminded of what you did during the War of Independence in America. You instigated and armed the Red Indians to-scalp your own countrymen because they were fighting for their own independence You would have done that in South Africa if your defeats had continued, and would have instigated and armed Zulu and Basuto savages to fight against the

  483
  Boers. The only thing that would stop you would be if you gained a few victories. The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of pressure on the Irish Militia. It is not a question of pressure at all. We know very well that you have deluded them and deceived them. I am opposed to the Vote of £15,000,000 for the continuance of the war for two reasons. I say it is an atrocious waste of money to spend £13,000,000 on the continance of a war for the destruction of the independence of the Boers in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, when you have tens of thousands of people starving, and you can find no money to relieve their distress, and to provide better and more sanitary houses for them instead of the slums in which they are packed together in droves. My other reason is that you have 50,000,000 of starving people in India. What are you doing for them? They are your subjects You under took to govern them, but ever since your rule has been established in India, you have had famines almost every other year. These fifty millions are dying of hunger, and you are doing nothing to save them from starvation. You are fighting to give the franchise to the rapscallions and scum of all the nations in Johannesburg; have you given the franchise to the people of India, your own subjects? You go to war to give the seven years franchise to the Uitlanders of the Transvaal, but why don't you give representative government to the people of India, instead of a despotism, the result of which is periodical famines? When you have smothered the independence of the Boers of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in their own blood, the Dutch race and the Irish race will have one common cause against one common enemy.
  DR. AMBROSE (): I wish to say a few words in support of the reduction of this Vote, and for this reason, that the Irish people from one end of Ireland to the other, except a few men who have gone to the front, are opposed to the war, because they believe that it is a most unjust war, and has been I brought about by fraudulent means. I also object to this money being voted, because one portion of it is to be spent in arming Volunteers and Yeomanry, while there are no Volunteers in Ireland. Another objection I have is, that Ireland is overtaxed already, and that you will
  484
  saddle on Ireland a portion of the money which is being spent on this most unjust war.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): I desire in a very few sentences to enter my protest on behalf of my constituents against this Vote, which is to be spent in the prosecution of an unjust war. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War wasted a good deal of charming eloquence to-night in saying little or nothing in answer to the charges of pressure brought to bear on the Irish Militia regiments to volunteer for the front. He ridiculed the idea that any pressure had been put upon the Irish Militia regiments, but I believe the public prints, which state that, at all events, some of the Irish Militia regiments stationed in England, having learned their legal rights, have changed their minds, and refused to proceed to South Africa, and not all the power of England will compel them to go on board ship. The hon. Gentleman says that the commanding officers are responsible persons, and above using any pressure on the men to volunteer, but he admits that the system adopted in asking the men whether they wished to go or not was not right. The whole regiment was brought out on parade, including the Reservists who were bound to go, and the question asked was—"Those not willing to go step out of the ranks." If that was not deception and pressure I do not know what is. But why should the Irish Militia be asked to go out to South Africa or to go to England. They are a military force for the protection of their own country. What is being done is that you are taking away these breadwinners from their families and sending to Ireland in their place British Militia. At this moment the garrison of Dublin is made up of British Militia; and the police courts are every day occupied with cases of the most discreditable character and of the violation of the law of property by these British Militiamen, brought in I suppose to improve the morality of the citizens of Dublin, as well as to protect the British Empire. Only last week there were several eases of burglary, and some of these British Militiamen are not now free to go to South Africa because they are sent to prison. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that it was a mistake from your point of view that you did not send these Militiamen out to South Africa, be-

  485
  cause if they could not take Pretoria, they were rogues enough to steal it. But about our Irish Militia regiments, the mode of procedure with them was first to get them into English towns, then saturate and drug them with bad whisky in the public houses, and next, use your moral influence upon them to go and take part in a war, which, in common with their countrymen at home, they believe to be unjust, and whose only object is to rob the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State of the gold and diamonds they possess. The hon. Gentleman said that certain regiments were jealous because they were deprived of the honour of going out to fight in this war. Why does he not tell us his authority for that? Surely a Minister of the Crown is not going to get up beside that box and discredit what we say, and not give us the name of the sender of the telegram. Give us the
  name and we will put it to the test. My hon. friend the Member for Clare asked a question to-day about an inmate of Doncaster Workhouse, named Bridget Gavin, who has seven sons in the Army. Such are the heroes of war—the unfortunate Irish soldiers who go out to fight for your flag. Only last week, in my own city of Kilkenny, another poor Irishwoman had to apply for relief, and got it, because her two sons, her only means of support, had been sent out to fight in this infamous war. I hope that these Irish Militiamen will be led by the spirit of their own country, and not by yours, and that they will not take part in a war so monstrous and of the expense of which they will have to pay too heavy a share.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 23.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

  Gosclien, Rt Hn GJ (St. George's

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley

  Arnold, Alfred

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Arhold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

  Denny, Colonel

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Hartley, George C. T.

  Digby, John K. D. WingField-

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Bethell, Commander

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir Will Theodore

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Billson, Alfred

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Helder, Augustus

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Emmont, Alfred

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Faber, George Denison

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mid'sex)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Brookfield, A Montagu

  Finch, George H.

  Holland, William Henry

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Butcher, John George

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Caldwell, James

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Flower, Ernest

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Kenyon, James

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Cavendish V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gedge, Sydney

  Kimber, Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Lafone, Alfred

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Langley, Batty

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Strachey, Edward

  Lewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Strauss, Arthur

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. E.

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pyin, C. Guy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Kasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rentonl, James Alexander

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kcnna, Reginald

  Round, James

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Malcolm, Ian

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Rutherford, John

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M.

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Morgan J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

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

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Woods, Samuel

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

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

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wyndham, George

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gra'm (Bute

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Younger, William

  Myers, William Henry

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M 'Taggart

  Penn, John

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Austin. M. (Limerick, W.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Blake, Edward

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Condon, Thomas-Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Tully, Jasper

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Dillon, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Malley, William

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Parnell, John Howard

  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. CREAN (): L know it is not a pleasant thing at this hour of the morning to address the House on the Vote before us, and under other circumstances I would not have done so. But I think it is absolutely necessary that each individual Member who represents an Irish constituency should use this and every other opportunity to protest against the action of the House in voting this thirteen millions for this unjust war. It is a double injustice to Ireland that not alone do you go to Avar without our sanction and consent, but you make us pay for it. No one can say that we who represent the majority of the Irish peo-
  488
  ple have failed to protest on every occasion against this, the most iniquitous war of the whole century. What has taken place during the last few days has given hon. Members opposite a sort of Dutch courage, although they are silent enough about voting away this large sum of money. The curt answers we get when we try to obtain some information are not such as should be given in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!] It is always the case to cry "divide" when an Irish representative wishes to express the opinion of; his constituents; and we voice the strong opinion of nine-tenths of the Irish people. The agitation in Ireland is not as it is in England; it is the free expression of I opinion. Corporations have passed reso-

  489
  lutions against the war, and public meetings, attended by thousands, have protested against it; and we would not be doing our duty if we did not protest against you spending their money, and making them responsible for the infamy of prosecuting this war. Before you entered into it we protosted against it, and we will continue to protest against it; and that being so, on what moral ground do you tax the Irish people to make them pay for it? Thirteen millions would make the Irish people comfortable. We are looking for money for the evicted tenants, to pay half the, rates, for a land
  purchase scheme, and for many other purposes; but we cannot get it, although our money is being spent, and the blood of our people shed for this, the most un-precedentedly wicked war in the history of the world.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes. 30. (Division List No. 24.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lawrenee, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Faber, George Denison

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewelyn, Sir Dilwyn-(Swans'a

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

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith-

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Hartley, George C. T.

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Luoas-Shadwell, William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Bethell, Commander

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Hill, Charles

  Gibbs. Hn. A.G.H. (C.of Lord.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Billson, Alfred

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Crae, George

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bond, Edward

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Middlemore, J. Tbrogmorton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Butcher, John George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Caldwell, James

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

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

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (D'byshire)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Chamberlain, J. Austoe (Worc.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

  Murray, Rt. Hon. Wyndham (Bath)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hanson. Sir Reginald

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Penn, John

  Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

  Helder, Augustus

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Holland, William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Round, James

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Kimber, Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyueux

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lafone, Alfred

  Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Langley, Batty

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rutherford, John

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Strauss, Arthur

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. Myles

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

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

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Woods, Samuel

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Wallace, Robert

  Younger, William

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M 'Taggart

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Strachey, Edward

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Parnell, John Howard

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John K. (Waterford

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'd)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crilly, Daniel

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Dillon, John

  M'Chee, Richard

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mandeville, J. Francis

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

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Furrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 25.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Arnold, Alfred

  Curzon, Viscount

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Davies, M. V. (Cardigan)

  Gretton, John

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Gull, Sir Cameron

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Bethell, Commander

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Bill, Charles

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Billson, Alfred

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Faber, George Denison

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailvyn Ed.

  Helder, Augustus

  Bond, Edward

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Bowles, Capt. H. K. (Middlesex

  Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Man.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Butcher, John George

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Holland, William Henry

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flower, Ernest

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

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

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Jessel, Captain H. Merton

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbt. John

  Lafone, Alfred

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Langley, Batty

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M 'Taggart

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

  Nieol, Donald Ninian

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strachey, Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Cunie

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Strauss, Arthur

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a

  Penn, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Purvis, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Crae, George

  Round, James

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Warner, T. Courtenay T.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham)

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Rutherford, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Woods, Samuel

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyndham, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Young, Commander, Berks, E.)

  Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Younger, William

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

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

  Muntz, Philip A.

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

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

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (cork. N.E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Killbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Engledew, Charles John

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

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Malley, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Parnell, John Howard

  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [16TH FEBRUARY].
  Resolution reported:—
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, the sum of £13,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. DILLONsaid that this resolution agreed to in Committee of Ways and
  494
  Means differed radically from that passed in October last, when the Vote of ten millions was passed for the commencement of the expenses of the war—a Vote which the House was led to expect would see us through the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then proposed two resolutions—first a resolution granting the money out of the Consolidated Fund, and second, a resolution that towards that sum of ten millions the Government should be authorised to issue a sum not exceeding eight millions by the issue of Treasury Bills, On that occasion, following the usual practice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very interesting statement, in which he discussed that most important question, and justified it, or sought to justify it at considerable length. At any rate he took

  495
  the Committee into his confidence. It was worth while recalling his words to the memory of the House:—
  "I should hope that no member of the Committee would suggest that that war expenditure—though it be about to be incurred in a war which, unquestionably, is of greater magnitude than any in which we have been engaged for some time past—yet I hope that I no one will suggest that this is a case in which it should be provided for by a permanent addition to the Debt of the country. To my mind, no such permanent addition would be justifiable, except, of course, in the event, which I hope we shall never see in our time, of a war with a first-class Power."
  Now that statement was received with [universal approbation throughout the House. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to justify his action, which he admitted was a departure from precedents, not to make any provision for the expenses of the war out of current taxation, and he frankly stated that it was because there was only five months of the current financial year to run, and that therefore no now taxation proposals could be made effective. He should like to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought the House was entitled to hear, some statement of the principles on which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise the present sum of £13,000,000.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid a discussion cm that point could not be allowed on the present resolution. The time for discussing the mode in which the money was to be raised would be at a subsequent stage.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,)said that at the present moment the Exchequer had means at its disposal for defraying current expenses without being obliged to come to Parliament. But it would be necessary before the close of the financial year to come to Parliament and ask the House to make provision for supplying further means to the Exchequer, and of course on that occasion he would explain fully to the Committee the mode in which he proposed to raise the money.
  MR. TULLYrose to continue the debate, when—
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 189; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 26.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Arehdale, Edward Mervyn

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arnold, Alfred

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Curzon, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goldswothy, Major-General

  Hartley, George C. T.

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bethell, Commander

  Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bill, Charles

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Billson, Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Gretton, John

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Bood, Edward

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bowles. Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Butcher, John George

  Faber, George Denison

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Caldwell, James

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Carlile, William Walter

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Helder, Augustus

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Holland, William Henry

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M 'Taggart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Strachey, Edward

  Kimber, Henry

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lafone, Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Talbot Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Univ.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

  Penn, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walton, Joseph (Harnsley)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Purvis, Robert

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Round, James

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

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Shuart

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Russell, Gen. K. S. (Cheltenham

  Wyndham, George

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  M'Crae, George

  Rutherford, John

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Parnell, John Howard

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Redmond. J. E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  K'rean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tally, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mandeville, J. Francis

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

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 30. (Division List No. 27.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Curzon, Viscount

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Butcher, John George

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Caldwell, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

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

  Carlile, William Walter

  Denny, Colonel

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants.

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Bethell, Commander

  Charington, Spencer

  Duucombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Billson, Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Blakiston, Houston, John

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Faber, George Denison

  Bond, Edward

  Cross, U. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailvyn Edward

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Furgusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn

  Robinson, Brooke

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Round, James

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H.

  Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenhant)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rutherford, John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Llewelyn, Sir Dilwyn-(Swansea

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lowe, Francis W.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Strachey, Edward

  Gretton, John

  M'Crae, George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxford U.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Milner, Sir Federick George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hedderwick, Thomas Cha. H.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Penn, John

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

  Holland, William Henry

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Wyndham, George

  Horniman Frederick John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

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

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Purvis, Robert

  Kimber, Henry

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  NOES.

  Abraham Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Parnell, John Howard

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crilly, Daniel

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C

  Mandeville, J. Francis

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

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

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

  Resolution agreed to.

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March,
  one thousand nine hundred," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day.
  It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after One of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted 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:—
Scottish American Investment Company, Limited [H.L.].
London Hydraulic Power Company [H.L.].
North-Eastern Railway [H.L.].
North-Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) [H.L.]
Taff Vale Railway [H.L.].
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours [H.L.]
Rhymney Railway [H.L.].
Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation [H.L.].
Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation [H.L.].
Great Southern and Western Railway [H.L.].
Imschenetzky's Uralite Patent [H.L.].
Whitechapel and Bow Railway [H.L.].
And the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
St. David's Railway (Abandonment).
And the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Hamilton, Motherwell, and Wishaw Tramways.
Wellingborough and District Tram-roads.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  COWES PIER BILL [H.L.]
  GLASGOW BUILDING REGULATIONS BILL [H.L.].
  NEATH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  RAWMARSH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].

  GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL [H.L.]
  >WALSALL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION.
  List of School Boards and School Attendance Committees in England and Wales, 1st January, 1900: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended 31st December, 1899.
  COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
  Returns from Clerks of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in 1899.
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Account of receipts and disbursements-ill 1899.

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  I. Military Savings Banks.—Account or gross amount of all moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of "The Fund for Military Savings Banks."
  II. Savings Banks and Friendly Societies.—

  1. Account of the gross amount of all sums received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of banks for savings and friendly societies in Great Britain and Ireland, from their commencement at 6th August, 1817, to 20th November, 1899, inclusive.

  2. Account of the several transactions which have taken place, during the year ended 20th November, 1899,

  343
  in the investment of all moneys which came into the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt for savings banks and friendly societies.

  3. Account showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to the trustees of savings banks and friendly societies respectively on 20th November 1899, etc.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FIND (IRELAND) (NON-CONGESTED DISTRICTS).
  Account for the year ended 31st December, 1899.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
  Treasury Minute, dated 10th January, 1900, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Inspector of Canal Boats, under the Local Government Board, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are requisite.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 to 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by Her Majesty to Dinah Cohen, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Dinah Cohen to be at large, on condition that she enter the Royal Victoria Home, Horfield, near Bristol.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  VOLUNTEER RANGES.
  *THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War how the sum of £40,000, which was in last year's Estimates appropriated to Volunteer ranges, has been applied, and what portion has been allocated to the North-Western District. This is, of course, only a small portion of a very much larger question, but anything which has to do with the shooting of our Volunteers at the present time is of importance. It will be in your Lordships recollection that considerable inconvenience was caused to many Volunteer corps soon after the issue of the Lee-Metford rifles by the compulsory closing of their ranges. I ventured to call attention to the subject last year, and the reply I then received from my noble friend the
  344
  Secretary of State for War was a sympathetic one, and, so far as it went, very satisfactory. A sum of £40,000 ! was, I understand, voted last year to i assist those Volunteers corps whose ranges I had been compulsorily closed to obtain: others. At the old range on which the battalion to which I belong used to fire an accident occurred, and as the result of an inquiry the range was condemned, and rightly condemned. The colonel of the battalion at once set about looking for another range, and with some difficulty obtained one. It was found that it would I cost £1,200 to. put the range into a thoroughly efficient state, and an application was made to the War Office for a grant, out of the £40,000 that had been voted, of £250 towards the cost. That application was refused, and I cannot make out on what ground it was refused. I am informed, but I can hardly believe it, that in cases where other ranges have been obtained, or where steps have been taken to obtain other ranges, no assistance will be given. It would appear to me, my Lords, that the officers who are energetic enough to do their utmost to obtain other ranges to supply the deficiency should be the first to obtain assistance. As no assistance was given by the Goverment in the case to which I have referred, and as the officers of the regiment could not bear the burden—it must be remembered that Volunteer officers are many of them not rich men—they had to fall back on the public. I think it will be generally admitted that during the present war the conduct of the public has been admirable. They have born e our reverses with a patience and a courage which are beyond praise, and in whatever direction their assistance has been asked, whether for the Soldiers and Sailors' Families Association, for the widows and orphans, for the sick and wounded, or for the equipment of the Imperial Yeomanry Volunteers, their assistance has been readily given. But I humbly submit that we ought not to ask too much of public spirit and public enterprise. Only the other day, in discussing the question of the extension of the time of training for Volunteers from one week to four weeks, the Under Secretary of State for War said, "We trust to the patriotism of employers." It seems to me, my Lords, that we cannot run our national defences on charity, and, while public spirit is perfectly ready to

  345
  do its share, I do not think we should ask too much of it. We all realise the importance of accurate rifle shooting among our Volunteers, and we also thoroughly realise the difficulties in the way of providing ranges. I understand there is a proposal to re-open some of the ranges that were closed. With adequate protection that might be done, but it seems to mo that if those ranges are not unsafe they ought never to have been closed, and if they are unsafe (they ought never to be reopened, But the case to which I have referred is one where a range had been obtained and where a little assistance from the Government would have been of the greatest value. I have ventured to deal with this more or less personal question, because, in my opinion, is it part of one whole force, and I should be much obliged if the noble Marquess, in answering mo, would explain the principle which has guided the authorities in making the distribution of this fund.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, before my noble friend the Secretary of State for War answers the question which has been put to him by the noble Earl, I should like to make a suggestion. I apprehend that the two most important matters with which the War Office have to deal in the present juncture of military affairs are. first, the organisation of the Militia, and, secondly, the encouragement of shooting all over the country. The question raised by my noble friend is connected with providing ranges for the use of Volunteers. That subject is of great importance, and I hope that, pending the provision of ranges in one way or another, some alteration will be made in the War Office regulations so that the expenses incurred by Volunteers in travelling from their residences to the places where the targets are situated shall be paid for by the Government, as well as the cost of the ammunition which they expend. The other day my noble friend behind me, Lord Tweednaouth, made what I consider a most valuable suggestion on this subject. He said it was quite possible that rifle shooting might, to a very considerable, extent, be taught at short ranges. There is no man in your Lordships' House who is more competent to express an opinion on this subject than my noble friend, who is accustomed to rifle shooting and is
  346
  himself an excellent shot. I think we all ought to assist the Government in every way in our power, and the suggestion I wish to offer to the Secretary of State is this. At the present time, under the Military Lands Act, the county councils have the power, on a requisition from one or two Volunteer Corps, to acquire land by voluntary arrangement for Volunteer purposes, and that power-includes the provision of ride ranges. I wish to ask my noble friend whether, if the county councils were prepared to do the work, he would have any objection to extending the voluntary power which they now have and making it a compulsory power, at any rate for the purpose of obtaining moderately short ranges, which would be useful, not only for the Volunteers, but for the education of the population of the country in rifle shooting. At the present moment count v councils have the power of acquiring land compulsorily for allotments, and I do not think any of your Lordships would say that the provision of rifle ranges is a less important matter than the provision of allotments. The compulsory provision in respect of allotment; has worked admirably throughout the country. When complaints have been made to county councils they have appointed committees of three members to inquire into them on the spot. These, committees have met, and upon their reports the county councils have acted. In my own county, although we have had a good many complaints of the want of allotments, yet after the inquiries have been made, and the parties concerned communicated with, we have come to amicable arrangements and have not been obliged to use our compulsory powers. I believe that, if a similar provision was introduced with respect, at any rate, to the hire of land for rifle ranges such as have been suggested by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, it could be worked without any friction, that there would be little or no difficulty in coming to a conclusion, and that the compulsory powers would only rarely be exercised. I know cases in my own county where difficulties have been put in the way of using ranges by proprietors, and the same thing has happened in other counties. Winchester is an important depot centre. It is the depot of the Hampshire regiments, and when the barracks which are now being built are completed, it will become the depot of two other very important

  347
  regiments, the King's Royal Rifles and the Rifle Brigade. Winchester is surrounded by downs, and vet there is no convenient range near. There can be no difficulty with proper arrangements in the way of a sufficient range being acquired. It is most important that our recruits should be taught to shoot; but if you cannot find ranges where they can practise, how can you possibly make them good shots? My suggestion is that the Secretary of State for War should accept the assistance of county councils in the matter, and if he gives me any encouragement I shall be happy to introduce a Bill in this House giving compulsory powers to county councils in respect of rifle ranges.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANNDOWNE): My Lords, the apparently limited question put on the Paper by my noble friend, which had reference to a matter of strictly local interest, has led to two very interesting speeches, which I have listened to with great attention, and which, I am bound to say, seem to me to be instructive and helpful. With regard to the sum taken under the Act of 1899 for local ranges, I have to say that we placed ourselves in communication with the general officers of the districts and called upon them to make to us recommendations as to the most advantageous manner in which this comparatively small sum might be spent. The sum was, as my noble friend has told the House, intended as a means of giving grants or subventions to Volunteer corps, or groups of corps, who might be endeavouring to provide themselves with range accommodation, and who could not command sufficient funds for the purpose. We have only just received the last of the answers to these interrogatories, and I am able to tell my noble friend that no allotment has yet been made of the £40,000. I therefore cannot tell him how much the district in which he is interested is likely to obtain. I need riot point out to the House that this sum was taken as an experiment, and I am bound to say that if that experiment succeeds, and I hope it will, it seem to me that we ought to do more in the same direction. With regard to what fell from Lord Northbrook, I am quite prepared to say that, whatever is done this year with regard to the special training of Volunteer corps, we shall certainly arrange
  348
  that a proper amount of musketry instruction shall form part of that training; and if that is so, I think it is only fair to say that travelling allowances will be arranged in such a manner as to enable; Volunteers to have access to ranges without, at any rate, having to put their hands into their own pockets. For that purpose the noble Earl made a very reasonable suggestion. He suggested, as I understood, that we should not merely, as we had intended, co-operate with Volunteer corps or groups of corps, but that we should co-operate with the local authorities, the county councils, in order; to obtain ranges in parts of the country where difficulty is experienced in obtaining them; and that for that purpose county councils should be given compulsory powers. The matter is one which I should like to consider. I think some means of that kind is necessary, because experience has shown us that the difficulty in many parts of the United Kingdom in, obtaining ranges is really sometimes insuperable. I am very familiar with the case the noble Earl referred to, that of Winchester, and I must say that I was never more disappointed than when, after an interminable negotiation, we found it was impossible for us to obtain a suitable site for a range. I shall be very glad to consider the noble Earl's suggestion, and I hope we may be able to devise some-means of using the agency of the county council for the purpose of assisting the Volunteers in this respect. If we do use that agency I do not see why, just as we are prepared to give grants to Volunteer corps, we might not in some cases place-public money at the disposal of the local authority for the purpose.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the Secretary of State for War looks upon this question of ranges in so sympathetic a manner. I hope he will bring all his influence to bear, both with the local authorities and with the various Departments of the Government, including the Treasury, to secure some distinct steps being taken in the direction of providing better and more numerous ranges. In this connection I am tempted to give the House a singular piece of evidence which I came across-yesterday as to the advantages to be gained from shooting at the shorter ranges. I was reading that excellent book on the life of Stonewall Jackson, by

  349
  Colonel Henderson, who is now on the Staff' in South Africa, and is well fitted to speak on any military matter. In that hook the author gives a table of the comparative ranges and effective fire of different rifles. Colonel Henderson gives the effective range of the Martini-Henry rifle sighted at 2,150 yards, as 400 yards, and that of the modern magazine rifle, sighted at 5,200 yards, as 450 yards. Surely, if an authority of weight such as Colonel Henderson puts down the really effective range of the modern magazine rifle at 450 yards, it stands to reason that 'what we should endeavour to do is to make Volunteers first-rate shots at 450 yards to commence with. When they are capable of shooting at the shorter ranges they might be trained at longer ranges where they could practise with perfect safety. After all, the danger of a range is to be measured largely by the distance at which you shoot the target. The danger does not arise when firing at short ranges, because, even if a man does drop the muzzle of his rifle, the bullet hits the ground comparatively near to the target and is caught either by the target itself or on the butt. I am sure the subject is one worthy of your Lordships' attention.
  LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, there is one point in connection with the answer which has been given by my noble friend the Secretary of State for War on which I think the House might receive a little more definite information. I understood from him that no money has been spent, and that the grant given last year is going to lapse. It would be very satisfactory if he could tell us that the grant will be renewed. This matter has excited a great deal of attention amongst Volunteers. In my own district, which is a poor one, there has been considerable difficulty in providing range accommodation, and the money necessary for putting the range in proper order has been borrowed on the personal responsibility of a few officers. I do not think that is a position in which these officers ought to be placed, and I hope the noble Marquess will be able to satisfy us that, at all events, if the grant is not to be renewed, another grant will be made of the same amount as last year.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am under the impression that the sum in question was provided under the Military
  350
  Works Loans Act, and there would therefore be no question of the money lapsing.

  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.] [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, the circumstances under which it is necessary to ask Parliament to pass this short Bill are these: In the year before last Parliament passed a measure giving local authorities, both in England and Scotland, power to contribute to or establish certified inebriates' reformatories. Subsequent experience has shown us that in two small points the Act, in its application to Scotland, is not perfect. It refers to the Reformatory Schools Act of 1877, and gives the local authorities the same powers to contribute to inebriates' reformatories as they have to reformatories generally in that Act, but it has been pointed out that in that Act there is no power to raise loans, and that the definition of burghs is imperfect. As those of your Lordships who come from Scotland know, there is more than one kind of burgh in Scotland, and they are not all mentioned in the definition clause of the Act of 1877. The first clause of this Bill remedies that defect, and the second clause adds one offence to the schedule, which, when committed accompanied by drunkenness, renders those who commit it liable to be brought before a magistrate for committal the a certified inebriate reformatory. The offence in question is that of behaving whilst drunk in a riotous or disorderly manner. The Bill is a short and simple one, and I need not detain your Lordships by giving any further explanation of it. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY AND VOLUNTEERS—TEMPORARY ARMY RANK—RELATTYE RANK WITH MILITIA OFFICERS.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that granting tem-

  351
  porary rank in the Army to officers of the Imperial Yeomanry and Imperial Volunteers has superseded all Militia officers of equal rank; and what steps will lie taken to remedy this injustice. I am sure I shall l>e anticipating what the noble Marquess will say when I state that the question of relative rank amongst the Auxiliary forces as compared with the Army is one of extreme difficulty. All officers in the Regular Army are senior to officers in the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers of the same rank. Officers of Militia are senior, in the same way, to officers in the Yeomanry and Volunteers, and officers in the Yeomanry are senior to Volunteer officers of the same rank. This new force which has lately been raised, the Imperial Yeomanry, has been officered partly from the Reserve of Officers who-have served in the Army, partly from Militia officers, partly from Yeomanry officers, and, in some instances, by gentlemen who apparently have never before held Her Majesty's commission. The effect of granting them temporary rank in the Army makes them senior to the Militia officers of the same rank, These Militia officers have been embodied some months, and many of them are doing duty in South Africa. As regards officers of low rank the effect will be slight. Those whom it will affect most seriously are the commanding officers of Militia battalions in South Africa. We will take the case of a Militia commanding officer stationed somewhere on the line of communication. At the same place there may be quartered, also for the protection of the line of communication, a battalion of Yeomanry. Any attack from the Boors driven off with success naturally brings kudos to the officer in command, but in that case the unhappy Militia officer, who has, perhaps, done 25 years service, will be junior to the officer commanding the battalion of Imperial Yeomanry, who has probably never served before. I beg to ask the question of which I have given notice.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it is likely that there will be some supersession of the kind to which the noble Lord has called attention. The facts are as he stated them. The Imperial Yeomanry have been enlisted as part of the Regular Army. It was necessary to do so, because if they had remained under the Yeomanry Act we
  352
  should have had no power over them outside the limits of the United Kingdom. For that reason the men were enlisted in the Regular Army, and temporary commissions in the Regular Army were given to the officers. I see the difficulty the noble Lord suggests, but I do not exactly see how we are to get over it. It is quite clear that the inconvenience, if there is any, is a temporary one, because the Imperial Yeomanry is a special force which has been raised for the operations now in progress, and I cannot help thinking that the case he has imagined of a colonel of a Militia battalion being superseded by a colonel of a battalion, I think he said, of the Imperial Yeomanry, is not very likely to occur. The intention is to employ the Imperial Yeomanry in companies as mounted infantry, and I cannot help thinking that if by some chance a senior officer of mounted infantry and a senior officer of Militia found themselves, together it would probably be for a few hours, or days at the most, and the practical inconvenience will not be great.
  LORD RAGLAN: Can the noble Marquess say that the whole question of relative rank, which is a very important one, will be inquired into?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should be glad to refer the question to persons better informed in regard to military seniority than I am.

  MILITIA AND THE FRANCHISE.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to. ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will include embodied Militiamen in any Bill they may introduce to prevent the Reserve men, Yeomanry, and Volunteers from being disfranchised by doing permanent duty. I only ask this question because, both in the discussions on this subject in the public Press and in another place, no mention has been made of the Militia.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In any Bill which is introduced for this purpose we shall certainly take particular care that the Militia are provided for. I may comfort the noble Lord by stating that I have seen the draft of the Bill, and Militia men are included in it.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Chairmen of the Standing Committee, that

  353
  they have appointed the Earl of Kimberley Chairman of the Standing Committee;
  read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.