Sitting of 15 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER: laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Central London Railway.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  RUGELEY GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  "For the abandonment of the St. David's Railway; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  ELECTRIC POWER BILLS (BY ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding Seven Members, to whom shall be committed the following Private Bills by which it is proposed to supply electric power:—

  Lancashire Electric Power Bill;

  Durham (County of) Electric Power Supply Bill;

  South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Bill;

  Tyneside Electric Power Bill;

  (read a second time on Thursday, 1st March)."—(Lord Balcarres.)
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the effect of the Amendment which he proposed to move, if carried, would be that the Bill would be referred to an ordinary Select Committee of fifteen members, nominated by the House of Commons, on which both the promoters and the opponents to the Bill would be represented. Whereas the result of the motion made by the noble Lord would be that the Bill would go before a Committee supposed to be impartial but on which neither side would be able to rely. He was rather surprised at the course taken by the noble Lord having regard to the facts that after the Second Reading of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade said he would not have the Bill referred to the Private Bill Committee but to what might be called a Consultation Committee. He did not know what might be meant by that, but no consultation had taken place so far as he could see, and the great object of his Amendment would be the appointment of a Committee in which both those who were opposed and those who were favourable to the Bill would have entire confidence.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITin seconding the Amendment expressed surprised at the inaction of the Board of Trade upon the subject. The hon. right Gentleman the President when the Bill was before the House had made a suggestion, which was the basis of what subsequently occurred, that there should be a Hybrid Committee. The one thing in favour of that was that it would be composed of experts, which was very necessary in such a matter as was now before the House. He hoped that what-

  901
  ever might be done a Committee would be found which would give an impartial and export consideration to the subject, which was of most vital importance to both the municipalities and the public.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding seven members,' in order to insert the words 'a Select Committee be appointed 'instead thereof."—(Mr. Galloway.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  DR. FARQUHARSONsupported the motion, and could not conceive a better tribunal to send a Bill to than a Committee of the character suggested by the noble Lord. Such a Committee was not subject to the loose and slippery attendance which characterised the other Committees of the House.
  MR. MONKhoped that the House would adopt the motion and reject the Amendment. The members of such a Committee were compelled to attend and hear evidence before they came to a decision, and if hon. Members did not attend they were reported to the House.
  *SIR F. S. POWELL: believed that this was a matter deeply affecting the welfare of the people, and that the House ought to appoint a strong Committee to deal with it. It appeared to him essential that the Committee should partake of a judicial character, and the proper way to deal with the matter was to send it to the Committee of Selection, who had always performed their duty with great success. He deprecated altogether the appointment of a Committee by the ordinary procedure, under which the members of a Select Committee were appointed. One advantage of such a Committee as was proposed was the certainty of attendance. In the Police and Sanitary Committee important issues might be decided by gentlemen who had not heard the evidence, but who picked up what information they could in a hurried manner before giving their votes. This was not merely a local, it was a national question, affecting the commerce, health and welfare of the people of the country; and
  902
  the strongest possible Committee should be appointed to consider it. The only way of avoiding the difficulty of deciding questions by gentlemen who had not heard the evidence was to insist upon a full attendance of the members serving on the Committee. Perhaps attendance could not be made compulsory without notice, but at any rate the House could insist upon a full quorum of seven. He might mention that his own constituents were greatly interested in this matter, as they were proposing to spend £90,000 upon electric power undertakings.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (SIR WILLIAM WALROND,thought the matter was of such great importance, that it was advisable the President of the Board of Trade should have an opportunity of expressing his views. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

  HAMILTON BURGH BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTHPORT EXTENSION AND TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from King's Lynn (two); West Lynn; and Wolverhampton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Patrixbourne; Stanford; Wolverhampton; Glasgow; and Eccles; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Blaenavon; and North Monmouthshire (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Islington; South-West Yorkshire; Rotherham; Patrixbourne; Acton; Shipley; Coventry; Stand ford; Leeds; Oakley; Ormskirk (two); Trevethin; Abergavenny; Wolverhampton; and London; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Galston, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AMERICAN MAILS.
  Return [presented 14th March] to be printed. [No. 96.]
  EMIGRATION (COLONIES).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Emigrants' Information Office for the year ended 31st December, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 16th February; Mr. Lloyd Morgan]; to lie upon the Table.
  MEDICAL COUNCILS.
  Accounts presented, for 1899 of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 5th March, 1900, declaring that Mr. Edwin Chadwick, postmaster, Dukinfield, Post Office Department, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Copy presented, of Statements of Account, and of Life Assurance and Annuity Business and Abstracts of Actuarial Reports, deposited with the Board of Trade during 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]
  Copy presented, of Banking and Railway Statistics (Ireland) to 31st December, 1899 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 6, 1900).
  Copy presented, of International Sanitary Convention. Signed at Venice, 19th March, 1899. [Ratifications deposited at Rome] [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Charitable Endowments (London).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. F. S. Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 98.]

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "giving the number of Arrests for Drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin and the cities of Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford on Sundays between the 1st day of May, 1898, and the 30th day of April, 1899, both days inclusive, the Arrests being given from 8 a.m. on Sundays till 8 a.m. on Mondays."
  "And, similar Returns for the rest of Ireland, from the 1st day of May, 1898, to the 30th day of April, 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 219, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. William Johnston.)

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  Address for "Return showing the number of Companies of Imperial Yeomanry that have been formed, the names of the Regiments and of the counties from which each Company has been raised, the number that have embarked with horses, and the number that have left either wholly or partially without horses."—(Mr. Strachey.)
  NEW WRIT.
  For the Borough of Lambeth (Brixton Division), in the room of the Hon. Evelyn Hubbard (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir William Walrond.)
  LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
  To the Marquess of Lorne, until Easter on account of ill-health.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  CENSUS (EXPENSES).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expenses incurred for the purposes of the Census, under any Acts of the present Session for taking the Census in Great Britain and Ireland (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Sir William Walrond.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—BOER OVERTURES FOR PEACE—AMERICAN GOOD OFFICES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government of the United States has offered its good offices to Her Majesty's Government with a view to bringing about peace in South Africa.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,): The United States Chargé d'Affaires on the 13th inst. communicated to Lord Salisbury the following telegram which he had received from Mr. Hay:—
  "By way of friendly good offices you will inform the British Minister for Foreign Affaire that I am to-day in receipt of a telegram from the United States Consul at Pretoria reporting that the Governments of the two African Republics request the President of the United States to intervene with a view to the cessation of hostilities; and that a similar request is made to representatives of European Powers. In communicating this request I am directed by the President of the United States to express his earnest hope that a way to bring about peace may be found, and to say that he would be glad to aid in any friendly manner to bring about so happy a result."
  Lord Salisbury requested Mr. White to convey to the United States Government the sincere acknowledgments of Her Majesty's Government for the friendly tone of their communication, but stated that Her Majesty's Government does not propose to accept the intervention of any Power in the South African war.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether intervention was not allowed in the case of Venezuela?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  PRESS CENSORSHIP—SUPPRESSED TELEGRAMS.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of
  906
  State for War whether a cablegram, cabled on 14th February to the News, Cape Town, by the South African Conciliation Committee, to the effect that an influential conference was held on that day supporting a vigorous Liberal policy, and expressing appreciation of the efforts of the Cape Colony and Natal ministers for peace and the conference's sense of the difficulties to Colonists and of the strain especially inflicted on the Dutch by the war, with which they are out of sympathy, has been suppressed by the censors; and under what law or regulation the legally adopted resolutions of a legal meeting have been thus suppressed.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): No information has reached this office that such a telegram was stopped by any of the censors.

  MEDALS FOR SOUTH AFRICAN SERVICE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is under consideration to award any medal or other distinction to the officers and men who defended Ladysmith, and especially in recognition of the gallantry shown in the repulse of the attack on 6th January.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The question of the grant of medals for services in South Africa must be considered as a whole.

  SELECTION OF TROOPS FOR ACTIVE SERVICE—MANCHESTER AND WORCESTERSHIRE REGIMENTS.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the 2nd Battalion Manchester Regiment and 1st Battalion Worcestershire Regiment are part of the 8th Division now about to be despatched to South Africa, and whether the linked battalions of these two regiments are already serving there; whether there are any exceptional reasons that have induced the military authorities to select these two battalions for active service under the conditions above named, when within the last few days it has been stated that the War Office consider it is undesirable to send a battalion to South Africa if it can

  907
  be avoided when another battalion of the same regiment is already there; and what number of men it has been found necessary to draw from the Army and Militia Reserves to bring them up respectively to war strength.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The battalions in question proceed to South Africa as part of the 8th Division. They belong to four battalion regiments, in each of which two of the battalions will remain at home. They will require 456 and 498 men respectively from the Army Reserve, but none from the Militia Reserve.
  GENERAL LAURIE: May I ask when the 3rd and 4th Battalions were raised?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give notice of that question?

  AUSTRALASIAN CONTINGENTS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table further Papers on the subject of the contingents of mounted troops furnished by the colonies of Australia and New Zealand; whether the latter colony was not behindhand in complying with the invitation of Her Majesty's Government to send a contingent of bushmen, but had in fact anticipated that invitation; and if there are any further particulars of these acts of loyalty which he would state to the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): (1)Further Papers will be laid as soon as the correspondence as to the force now being raised is complete. (2) The New Zealand Government on the 3rd of February last offered, in addition to the four contingents furnished by the colony, to raise a further force of the bushmen class for general service in South Africa during the war. This offer was accepted, and the men, who will number 500, will serve on the same terms as the men now being raised by the Australian colonies. The total number offered and provided by New Zealand is 1,450. In proportion to population this would be equal to a force of 80,000 men from the United Kingdom. (3) Full information will be contained in the Papers.

  WEST INDIES—OFFER OF CONTINGENTS.
  MR. CALDWELL(for Mr. HEDDERWICK, Wick Burghs): On behalf of my hon. friend, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether certain of our loyal colonies in the West Indies offered to contribute contingents to our forces in the field in South Africa; and, if so, whether, with due regard to public policy, he can state the grounds upon which the offer was declined.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Such offers were made and gratefully acknowledged. Any refusal of a European contingent as, for example, from Trinidad, was mainly due to the number offered not being large enough to constitute a military unit.

  MAGAZINE RIFLES.
  MR. CALDWELL (for Mr. HEDDERWICK): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the service rifle now in use by our troops weighs nearly 1 lb. more than the Mauser, the Mannlicher, and the weapon of the United States Army; whether the magazine of the British rifle can only be refilled by placing single cartridges one at a time in the slot, whereas the magazine of the Mauser rifle used by the Boers can be recharged by a single movement of the hand; whether the ammunition in use for the British rifle is heavier than that in use by the leading Continental armies, and whether, in consequence, a smaller supply is carried by the British soldier than by the German, French, or Italian soldier; and whether weight of equipment and rapidity of loading are points of grave military importance.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: There are many patterns of Mannlichers and Mausers, and the British rifle is heavier than some and lighter than others. The American army rifle is ½ lb. heavier than the British rifle. The statements made in paragraph 2 are accurate, but there are reasons for preferring the arrangements for loading which have been adopted in the British rifle. The British cartridge weighs less than either the French, German, Austrian, or American, while the British soldier carries 150 rounds, the French carries 120, the German 160, and the Italian 96. The reply to the fourth paragraph is in the affirmative.

  RETIRED CAVALRY OFFICERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the number of retired cavalry officers of the rank of captain available for service under Article 486c of the Royal Warrant of 1896; what number of such officers are at present employed in connection with the war; and if it is the intention of the War Office to recall any of these officers under Article 666 of Royal Warrant, 1896, during the present emergency.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The answer to the first question is 107; to the second, 36; and to the third, in the affirmative.

  DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY THE BOERS—THREATS TO DESTROY JOHANNESBURG.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement that the Boers have wrecked the coal mines near Ladysmith, and that Government officials openly express their determination to demolish the whole of the machinery and plant of the leading gold mines, and to destroy the principal buildings in Johannesburg; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of warning President Kruger that he will be held personally responsible for wanton damage to private property.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) I have observed such statements in the newspapers. (2) The matter is under consideration, but I wouldremind the hon. Member that on the outbreak of the war President Kruger was warned that he and his Government were expected to protect the lives and property of all peaceable persons, and will be held responsible for any acts committed contrary to the usages of civilised people (see pages 41 and 69 of C. 9530).

  CASUALTIES—WAR OFFICE COMMUNICATION WITH RELATIVES.
  MR. DUCKWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a Reservist from Rochdale named Kierman, who joined his regiment (the Scottish Rifles) in South Africa and was afterwards transferred to the mounted infantry at Colenso, has died of wounds
  910
  received at that place, and that his mother has had no official notification of this fact except through a letter just received from the captain of Kierman's company; and whether it is usual for the War Office to inform the nearest of kin in such cases.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The fact that Kierman had been wounded was duly notified to the regimental depôt for report to the next of kin, but by some accident, which is much regretted, the circumstance that he died later of his wound was overlooked. The usual practice is to notify casualties to the regimental district, whence they are communicated to the next of kin.

  PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any commissions have been given to men from the ranks in connection with the war in South Africa; and, if so, how many.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: As I have already told the House, no recommendations for the promotion of men from the ranks to commissions for services in the field have yet been received from Lord Roberts.

  NUMBER OF CONVALESCENT WOUNDED.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will give the actual or approximate number of those who have been returned wounded since the commencement of the war, who are already cured of their wounds and back again at the front.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I can give figures up to the 2nd February, which are as follows:—Wounded: officers, 261; non-commissioned officers and men, 4,583. Returned to duty: officers, 67; non-commissioned officers and men, 705. These figures do not include casualties in Ladysmith and Kimberley since investment.

  MARTIAL LAW—DUTCH PRISONERS AT SIMONSTOWN.
  MR. COURTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any further

  911
  information respecting the three persons who were taken back into a proclaimed district after application had been made to the High Court at Cape Town, as to whom a writ of habeas corpus was subsequently issued by the High Court and made returnable on Monday last.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir A. Milner informed me on the 6th instant that he had received a report from the military authorities to the effect that the general officer commanding Orange River had been carefully into the case of the three men and had ordered their release, there not being evidence to convict.

  AGE OF RECRUITS—CASE OF JAMES MARTIN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the legal age at which the military authorities can retain a recruit who, having enlisted, has claimed his discharge either by himself or his legal guardians on the grounds that he is under age; whether a boy named James Martin enlisted in the 1st Battalion of the Dublin Fusiliers last October, and whether his parents claimed his discharge on the grounds that he was under age, and enclosed the official certificate of his birth, showing his exact age was seventeen years and six months; and whether it is intended to discharge James Martin; and, if not, on what grounds is he retained.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: There is no legal age. The practice is to let a recruit go who is under seventeen years of age if his discharge is claimed. If he is over seventeen the discretion rests entirely with the general officer commanding the district. In this case he has decided to retain James Martin, and the man will accordingly be held to serve.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that Martin will be discharged?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I said just the reverse.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Suppose Martin is a ward in Chancery?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—REPORTS AFTER 1897.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why no Report for the Army Medical Department has been issued since the Report for the year 1897; what has been the cause of the delay; and when the next Report will be given in succession to Vol. xxxix.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The Report for 1898 will shortly be issued.

  COAST DEFENCE GUNS.
  MR. MCKENNAN.) (for Mr. C. E. SHAW,: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether some of the most modern guns have been removed from their places in the coast defences and sent to South Africa: and if so, what steps have been taken to replace them with others equally or possibly more efficient.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No modern guns have been removed from their places in defences and sent to South Africa.

  MISCONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the business of J. Bennett and Sons, which has been recently struck off the list of contractors to the War Office on the ground of supplying defective stores for the use of Her Majesty's Field Force in South Africa, was some time ago purchased by Underwood and Sons, Limited, who have since carried on the business under the name and style of J. Bennett and Sons; whether the said Underwood and Sons, Limited, had before purchasing the business of Bennett and Sons been struck off the list of War Office contractors for malpractices in the execution of contracts; and whether he is aware that the said Underwood and Sons, Limited, although struck off the War Office list of contractors, have subsequently, under the name and style of Bennett and Sons, executed large contracts for the War Office, including that which has led to their being again struck off the War Office list as J. Bennett and Sons; whether he can state whether any and what person is responsible for ascertaining

  913
  the identity of contractors executing contracts for the War Office; and whether he can state whether any and what precautions are taken to prevent contractors guilty of malpractices continuing to contract with the War Office after being struck off the list under circumstances similar to the above.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Messrs. Underwood and Sons, who were struck of the list of contractors for supplying rotten hay to the forces, were the same firm which bought the name and business of Bennett, and again tendered and were again dismissed from the list of contractors for a similar offence shortly afterwards; and whether the Government proposes to prosecute this firm.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Bennett's, until they were recently struck off the list, had been regular contractors to the War Office since 1873. Underwood's was struck off the list in 1884. It would now appear from statements made by Brown—the other contractor recently removed from the list—that Underwood acquired Bennett's business, and has been dealing with the Department in the name of Bennett. The Financial Secretary, through his executive officers, is responsible for making all necessary inquiries as to the standing of contractors. The names of blacklisted contractors are widely circulated among all officers likely to be concerned; and every effort is made to detect any attempt on the part of such contractors to deal with the war Department under assumed names.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does my hon. friend see any objection now to give the Returns in the form I asked for?—that is, to give the Christian names, the surnames, and addresses of all the members of every firm which were struck off the list.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Does my right hon. friend mean the names of all contractors that have ever been struck off the list?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: In my motion for the Return I said, "During the current financial year," but I should like it for ten years.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Perhaps my right hon. friend will confer
  914
  with me in the matter. There is not the least disposition to screen or shelter anyone. The hesitation of the Secretary of State to disclose, at first, the two names of these contractors, whose names appear in the Returns given to the House, was solely due to the fact that litigation was pending between them which might have been prejudiced by his so doing.
  MAJOR RASCH: In reply to the latter part of my question, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will prosecute?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Upon that point I have to say that the Secretary of State is taking legal advice.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is it the case that the War Office only recently took back a contractor who had been previously struck off?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Then I give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  IRISH FINANCIAL RELATIONS— GOVERNMENT STORES—COMPARATIVE OUTLAY IN THE THREE KINGDOMS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will sanction a Return showing the comparative outlay in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively on foot of Government stores and supplies purchased since the beginning of the current financial year, April 1st, 1899, to the present time.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The preparation of such a Return would involve an immense amount of labour. I am not prepared to impose such a task upon the War Office at the present time.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the First Lord if it would not be possible to give such a Return, considering the great importance of this matter in its bearing upon the controversy arising out of the Report of the Financial Relations Commission? It is of the utmost importance, in view of the debate that is coming on next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite ready to make inquiry into the matter, but I understand that every Irish contractor has as great facility for obtaining contracts as English and Scotch contractors. Consequently, I do not see that the Return would have the bearing of which the hon. Gentleman speaks upon the debate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate the obtaining by us of information as to the comparative, outlay upon alleged Imperial purposes in England, Scotland, and Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If that is the inquiry the hon. Gentleman desires, I shall be glad to try to give it, but I am afraid it will be very difficult to obtain the information.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate the obtaining of the Returns as soon as possible?
  [No answer was given.]

  WOOLWICH CADETS—GUNS FOR DRILL PURPOSES.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the cadets at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, who are being trained for the engineers and artillery, are taught gun drill with muzzle-loading guns of an obsolete pattern; and whether the Government will provide guns of a modern type for the instruction of the cadets at Woolwich.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: They have breech-loading guns for drill purposes of the latest type.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government requirements for rifle ranges entail the provision of a piece of land 4,000 yards long by 500 yards wide; and, whether it is possible, by means of screens, to provide a perfectly safe range for the use of the Lee-Enfield rifle on a much smaller piece of land.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The dimensions of a range depend entirely on the nature of the country, but on a level
  916
  site for a 1,000 yards range ground would be required in length 2,000 yards behind the butt, and in breadth 200 yards at the butt, and 500 yards at 1,000 yards in rear. Inquiries are at present being made in regard to the provision of safety ranges of smaller dimensions.

  YEOMANRY—THE LONG SERVICE MEDAL.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the desirability of giving to the Yeomanry the long-service medal now given to the Volunteers has been considered; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: This suggestion has been repeatedly made, but it has not been thought desirable to adopt it.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.
  MR. MCKENNA (for Mr. C. E. SHAW): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any allowance for outfit will be provided out of the public funds for Volunteer officers proceeding with active service companies to South Africa, such outfit forming no part of their ordinary equipment and being of no further use to them after their return home on the conclusion of the war.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: A capitation allowance of £12 is paid to the corps for the provision of the outfit of each officer and man of the Volunteers proceeding with the service companies to South Africa.

  VOLUNTEER CAPITATION GRANT.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to graduate the Volunteer capitation grant according to the area covered by the corps, inasmuch as a country corps may require as many as a dozen armouries and drill halls, whereas a city corps need only require one.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I am afraid that the suggestion of my honourable and gallant friend would not prove practicable.

  VOLUNTEERS—LOANS TO DETACHED COMPANIES—THE NEW VOLUNTEER REGULATIONS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if assistance will be given to companies other than headquarter companies to raise funds for the erection of drill halls. May I also ask when the new Volunteer regulations will be out?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I cannot answer the latter question without notice, but they will not be long, certainly. The same assistance in the nature of facilities for the grant of loans is given to detached companies as is given to headquarter companies.

  VOLUNTEERS FOR SHETLAND.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has received a memorial from Shetland asking for permission to establish a local Volunteer force, either of rifles or artillery; and whether the Government will be prepared to entertain favourably this request, considering that there is no Militia force raised in the county, and (except the Royal Naval Reserve, which is confined to fishermen) there is no opportunity offered for the people of the islands to qualify themselves to take a part in the defence of the country.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The memorial has been recently received, and will be duly considered. It will be difficult, however, to utilise their services in schemes for national defence.

  THE WAR LOAN.
  MR. BAIRD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in allotting the War Loan he will give preference to applications made by British subjects.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am afraid it would not be possible to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend. No such preference was suggested in the terms of the issue, and I do not think it would be possible in practice.

  SOUTH AFRICAN PAPERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, on Tuesday afternoon, only 200 copies of "Africa, No. 2, 1900," laid before Parliament on that day, were sent from the Foreign Office for the use of Members; and if he is aware that, after repeated inquiries for the said Papers at the Vote Office by Members, no further copies could be obtained.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. BRODRICK,): The 200 copies of Parliamentary Paper "Africa No. 2 (1900)" which were sent to the Vote Office from the Foreign Office on Tuesday afternoon were sent in pursuance of a long-established practice, under which, in special cases, a limited number of advance copies of a Paper of exceptional interest is furnished at the earliest moment for the immediate use of such hon. Members as may wish to refer to it. The usual delivery of the Paper "Africa No. 2" took place on Wednesday morning, independently of the special advance delivery made on Tuesday afternoon.

  ANTI-BRITISH DEMONSTRATIONS IN SAXONY.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that the British community in Dresden have been subjected to continual insults during the past three months; that the British flag was torn down from the Anglo-American Club in which it was displayed; and that the English church has been damaged and disfigured; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any information to this effect; and, if so, whether they propose to address a remonstrance to the Government of Saxony, with a view to prevent a recurrence of such proceedings.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are informed by Sir A. Condie Stephen that there have been occasional instances of insolent behaviour to British subjects in the streets of Dresden. The British flag which was left flying from a window of the Anglo-American Club at night was torn down, and the English Church was on two occasions disfigured at night. Sir A. Condie

  919
  Stephen has not failed to make strong representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has expressed deep regret and has given satisfactory assurances that every possible measure will be taken by the police to prevent recurrence of such deplorable incidents and to protect British subjects. The individual suspected of tearing down the flag has been arrested. The flag has been recovered.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE—CHANNEL SQUADRON.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the following notice was issued on the 22nd of February to the engine-room artificers serving with the Channel Squadron—namely, "Unless the E.R.A.'s who rode into Castleton, passing the rear-admiral and the captains of the "Hannibal" and "Resolution," are reported, the leave of the E.R.A.'s ashore to-day will be stopped until further orders"; and whether this notice has since been withdrawn; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have it withdrawn in the interests of those chief petty officers who were in no way concerned with the offence.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The Admiralty have no knowledge of the notice to the engine-room artificers of the Channel Squadron referred to in the question. In any case, the Admiral in command is responsible for the maintenance of discipline and order in the fleet under his orders, and it would be very undesirable for the Admiralty to interfere with the steps he has found it necessary to take to secure these.
  MR. FENWICK: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made as to whether this notice was posted?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I will consult my right hon. friend.

  CHANNEL SQUADRON—RATIONS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN(for Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL, Donegal, S.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is discontent among the crews of the Channel Fleet with respect to the quality and quantity of the food supplied to the
  920
  ships, and that complaints with reference to the quality and quantity of the food are discountenanced by the officers, and regarded as evidence of insubordination; and whether he will direct an investigation independently conducted to be made as to whether the rations served on board Her Majesty's ships of the Channel Fleet are of the proper quality and quantity, and whether the Admiralty will direct the sale of provisions on board these ships to be discontinued, or provide that goods be sold at the canteens not at extortionate prices but at the prices at which similar goods are sold on shore.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The reply to the first question is in the negative. With regard to the second question, I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the course of the debate in this House on Thursday last.* The managing committee, which with two exceptions is composed of representatives of the men, should be competent to take precautions against extortionate prices being charged. As a matter of fact, it is understood that the goods sold in the canteens are retailed at a lower price than that at which they could be obtained by the men on shore.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Could not arrangements be made to supply the men in the Channel Fleet with home-fed meat?
  MR. MACARTNEY: All the fresh meat supplied to the Channel Squadron is supplied at local ports by local merchants.

  INDO-EUROPEAN TELEGRAPH COMPANY—RUSSIAN CONVENTION.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to the effect that the Telegraphic Convention with Russia has been renewed by the Indo-European Company on the basis of a return of 17½ per cent. to that Government from the gross earnings of the company; and whether this arrangement has been concluded with the knowledge of and after consultation with the Indian Government, as one of the joint purse partners.
  *See page 413 of this volume.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: I have no information as to the renewal of the agreement between the Indo-European Telegraph Company and the Russian Government, nor has the Government of India, so far as I am aware, been consulted on the subject.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS— CASE OF KANTY CHANDRA MOOKERJEE.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the memorial of Kanty Chandra Mookerjee, addressed to him under date of 22nd December, 1874, together with the Papers therein referred to.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have received no memorial from the person named in the hon. Member's question bearing the date mentioned in the Paper. A memorial dated the 22nd December, 1897, has, however, been received, in which the memorialist appealed against orders passed in 1889, dismissing him from Government service and refusing him a pension. I saw no reason to interfere. The Papers do not appear to be of sufficient importance to be presented to Parliament.

  INDIAN FAMINE RELIEF WORKS.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will specify the various forms of employment provided at the famine relief works; and, whether he can state approximately the number of persons employed on breaking metal for roads, on excavating tanks, and on constructing embankments for railways.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member has mentioned, in the latter part of his question, the principal forms of employment provided for those who need relief in the famine districts; namely, the construction of roads, of irrigation works, and of railways. Under each of these heads many different kinds of labour are comprised, and the object of the authorities is, as far as possible, to adapt the work to the habits and capacities of the workers; but I cannot give a complete statement either as to the nature of these various employments, or as to the number of persons employed upon each of them.

  TRUST FUND INVESTMENTS IN COLONIAL SECURITIES.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the prohibition of the investment of trust funds in Colonial Government securities is still in operation; and, if so, whether there is any early prospect of the removal of this restriction.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not correct to say that there is a prohibition of the investment of trust funds in colonial securities, but they can only be so invested if the terms of the trust deed permit it. The matter is under consideration, and I hope later to be in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  GIBRALTAR—POLICE, MUNICIPAL, AND SANITARY ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Governor of Gibraltar has been called to the question of introducing reforms into the administration of the police, municipal, and sanitary departments at Gibraltar; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take for the purpose of remedying the grievances of which residents in the town and fortress complain.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The only reform required in regard to the police in Gibraltar is the building of police barracks. The question is engaging the attention of the Governor, but a suitable site is difficult to obtain. The Sanitary Commissioners who are the only municipal authority in the town perform their duties satisfactorily. I am not aware of any grievances of which the residents complain.

  MALTA—SANITARY CONDITION OF BARRACKS.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the decision of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the advisability of holding a departmental or inter-departmental inquiry into the sanitary condition of the barracks, hospitals, and burial grounds at Malta, with the object of improving the buildings occupied by the Army and by Naval officers and others in that island.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The consideration of this subject has not yet been concluded, but as at present advised Her Majesty's Government do not perceive that any departmental inquiry will be required.

  NIGERIA—ATTACK OF NATIVE TRIBESMEN ON BRITISH OFFICIALS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information as to the reported fighting in Nigeria between 500 men of the second battalion of the West African Frontier Force and a body of Mitchi tribesmen, cast of Lokoja; and whether he can state what were the casualties of the British troops, and what was the object of the expedition.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; General Lugard has reported that in January the Mitchis made an attack on a party engaged in constructing a telegraph line from Lokoja to Ibbi, killing one native soldier and wounding Captain Eaton and ten native soldiers. Shortly afterwards a further attack was made, in which two native soldiers were killed and three dangerously wounded. Lieutenant-Colonel Lowry-Cole has been sent with reinforcements to restore order, but no further information has at present been received except that Sergeant Hawkins has been wounded.

  NEWFOUNDLAND TREATY SHORE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Report compiled by the two Royal Commissioners, Sir James Erskine and Sir John Bramston, dealing with the French treaty shore question in Newfoundland, will be printed and issued to Members.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated in reply to similar questions* that it is not intended to publish the Report at present.
  DR. TANNER: Will there be any means by which Members of this House can obtain cognisance of this Report, or is it to remain hidden?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. Lxxvii., page 443.

  MANCHESTER POSTAL EMPLOYEES' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, pending the general decision promised as to the memorial presented to the Postmaster General by various employées of the Manchester Post Office with reference to the stripes of men who were juniors and have claimed full service and corresponding stripes still undistributed, he will consent to issue the stripes claimed in accordance with the Tweedmouth Committee Report (i.e., junior service counted as half time), in the following cases: A. Hill, who has ten years and three months full appointment, and three years and four months junior, including unestablished, or two years and ten months appointed junior service, possessing now only one stripe, which he received in January, 1892, his appointed junior service having been counted as full time; and in the case of A. Gerard, who has fifteen years and three months full appointment, and three years and three months junior, including four months unestablished, possessing now two stripes, the last of which he received eight years ago, his junior service being then counted as full time.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Tweedmouth Committee decided that service as junior postman can only be reckoned as half time towards good conduct stripes, and it has been decided by the Postmaster General that the case of the postmen at Manchester shall be dealt with accordingly.

  IMPROVEMENTS IN CEREALS.
  MR. MCKENNA (for Mr. C. E. SHAW): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Brothers Gorton, of Newton-le-Willows, after having refused a large monetary offer from the American Government for the results of their discoveries in respect to the successful crossing of cereals and grasses, have offered the whole of their experiments gratuitously to three successive Ministers of Agriculture for the benefit of the British farmer; and whether the reply of each Minister in question has been that there is no provision at the Board of Agriculture for the supervision of such experiments.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): Correspondence has taken place between Messrs. R. and J. Garton, of Newton-le-Willows, and successive Presidents of the Board of Agriculture, with regard to the work they have done in connection with the production of improved varieties of wheat, barley, oats, and rye, but the purport neither of the letters received nor of the answers sent appears to me to be correctly indicated in the question. I shall be happy to supply a copy of the correspondence to the hon. Member if he so desires.

  SHEEP WORRYING.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to state what measures the Government will take to put down the serious evil of sheep worrying.
  *MR. LONG: We propose to include, in the Bill which I am about to introduce, certain provisions with regard to the seizure of stray dogs and the prevention of straying, which will, I hope, enable local authorities to check the worrying of sheep, with regard to which, as I am well aware, considerable complaint has arisen in many parts of Scotland. The proposals we make with regard to the issue of certificates of exemption from license duty will also, I trust, be of some value in this connection.

  LEAD POISONING.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the following cases have been reported to the Home Office as cases of lead poisoning:—John James Brooks, glost placer, at Johnston's, Hanley; Edward Gibson, dipper, at Johnson's, Burslem; Thomas Walker, ground layer, at Grimwade's; Ellen Harrup, litho duster, at Booth's; Harriett Hall, litho transfer duster, at Chromo Transfer Company's; and, if not, why they were not so reported.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The case of Gibson has been duly notified as one of lead poisoning. The cases of Brooks, Harrup, and Hall have not
  926
  been notified, and they are not believed by their medical attendants to be cases of lead poisoning, and I may say that two of these persons (being women) were, on examination by the certifying surgeon, suspended from employment in August last. The reasons for suspension may be various; but if the surgeon had believed them to be lead poisoning, it would have been his duty also to report them. The remaining case of Walker is one of paralysis of the wrist developed three years ago, when the man consulted the late Dr. Arlidge. I cannot say why Dr. Arlidge did not notify the case. I am informed that the man has not since that date consulted a medical man.

  RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH—DISTURBANCES DIRECTED AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THE WAR AT STRATFORD-ON-AVON, HIGHBURY (LONDON), AND SCARBOROUGH, AND IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent riots in Stratford-on-Avon, and to the statement of Mr. H. H. Bullard that his house was invaded by a mob, who broke the windows and damaged or completely destroyed his whole stock of old china and antique furniture; and what steps are being taken by the Government to protect peaceable citizens from such proceedings.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, I have made inquiries, but as proceedings are being taken against two of the ringleaders, and as I am informed that Mr. Bullard is about to make a claim under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886, it would not be proper for me to say more at present except that I hope the local authorities, on whom the responsibility lies, will everywhere exercise firmness in preventing such riotous proceedings.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to say a word in answer to the concluding part of my question, with regard to the steps to be taken to prevent a recurrence of these disorders.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I thought my answer implied that I thought the Government could not do anything more at present. Proceedings are, as I explained, being taken against two of the ringleaders, and a claim for damages will

  927
  be made. Under these circumstances it would be highly improper for me to say anything as to the circumstances attending these proceedings.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under similar circumstances in Ireland trial by jury would have been suspended under the Coercion Act?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a meeting near Highbury Corner, which was being conducted in a perfectly quiet manner, last Sunday, until broken up by the police on the ground that it was likely to become disorderly; whether this is a sufficient pretext for interfering with a peacefully conducted meeting; and whether he can promise that such gatherings shall be protected in future.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have made enquiry into this matter. The police did not interfere until the meeting had in their judgment become disorderly and there was serious danger of a breach of the peace. I am of opinion that the police were entirely justified in the action they took.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the damage to property in Scarborough during recent riots, belonging to Mr. Wood head, a late Member of this House, and other persons; and whether he can say from what source, if any, compensation can be claimed by those persons out of public funds.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I have not seen any particulars of the incident to which the hon. Member refers, and it is, therefore, not possible for me to express any opinion as to whether any proceedings for compensation would be successful.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the numerous recent instances of disturbance connected with meetings called for the discussion of South African affairs, or directed against the person and property of individuals owing to their supposed
  928
  opinions about the present war, Her Majesty's Government will cause inquiry to be made how far and by whom these disturbances were organised; and will he consider what steps are necessary to prevent a repetition of such occurrences, and to punish the offenders.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Every case reported to my right hon. friend the Home Secretary has been carefully examined, and every such unhappy occurrence will be so examined. There is not the slightest evidence that there has been any organisation of these demonstrations, which appear to be absolutely spontaneous in their character as far as the evidence which has come before my right hon. friend goes to show. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is the local authorities who are responsible both for the maintenance of order and for the punishment of transgressors, and any aid which can be given to them in carrying out those duties shall, of course, be readily afforded. Speaking for myself, I strongly deprecate these demonstrations, and I expect no good of them. I think that they are contrary to the best traditions of English life. For a large part of my political life I have belonged to a party which was unable to hold meetings in certain portions of the country, and, therefore, I am at least as anxious on this subject as the right hon. Gentleman, who has been more fortunately situated than I myself could possibly be. But I think that the responsibility rests not only upon the local authorities and upon those concerned in these unfortunate proceedings, but also upon those who called the meetings. It must be remembered that public feeling is necessarily deeply stirred at the present time. In every district of the country there are persons who have lost near relatives or friends in the present war; and nine-tenths of the country—ninety-nine hundredths of the country—believe, rightly or wrongly, that these meetings are called for an object which, if it were effectual, would render the occurrence of these great calamities possible. They think that in no other country in the world, and least of all in the Transvaal itself, would such meetings be tolerated; and they are aware that the fact of such meetings being held is, by people who know little of our methods and traditions, used abroad as an indication of a divided country and a hesitating Government. In

  929
  these circumstances, the tension of public opinion must necessarily be of a kind affording a grave anxiety to those responsible for the public peace; and I venture to add that those who call these meetings ought to be careful lest they ask more of human nature than all history shows that human nature is capable of giving.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I have only two questions to ask the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the somewhat long explanation which he has made. The first is this. I wish to know whether he is aware of what I believe to be the case, as far as I have been able to look into the matter, that a large number of the meetings which were the occasion of these disturbances were private meetings, and not public meetings at all. In the second place, I wish, for the sake of curiosity, passing by the general political effect of what he has said, to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what occasions and where the party to which he belongs has been prevented from obtaining a hearing—[Cries of "Aston Riots!" and "Birmingham!"]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As to the in formation which the right hon. Gentle man desires, in regard to the nature to the meetings, I am afraid that I must ask him to put the question to my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, who has the details, or to give me notice of the question, when I shall be glad to answer it at a future day. As to the second supplementary question of the right hon. Gentleman, I listened to it with some surprise; for I remember that during the crisis of the Home Rule discussion it was impossible, even in most parts of the metropolis, for the Unionist party to hold a meeting.
  MR. COURTNEY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman this simple supplementary question. He spoke of having consulted with the Home Secretary. Will he take care that inquiry shall be pursued further, and shall apply to the incidents which have occurred in Scotland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consult my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate on the subject.

  THE DATE OF EASTER.
  MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General
  930
  whether he is aware that under Section 3 and relative schedule of 24 George II., c. 23,* Easter Day is the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of March, and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday after; and that the first full moon which happens next after the 21st day of March this year is on Sunday the 15th April at 1.2 a.m., and that Easter Day should therefore apparently fall on the 22nd April, and not on the 15th April as given in the calendar; and whether having regard to the possibility of doubt arising as to when bills falling due on a day dependent on the date of Easter are legally payable, he will introduce a short Bill to make the 15th April Easter Day this year in Law as well as in the calendar.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The third section of the statute referred to by the hon. Member enacts that Easter shall be observed according to these tables and rules annexed to the statute. One of the tables provides that the paschal full moon in the year 1900 falls on April 14, and that the feast of Easter falls on the 15th. The fact is that the full moon referred to in the statute is not the actual full moon nor the mean full moon, but a fictitious or statutory full moon, sometimes called the ecclesiastical full moon. As there is no possibility of doubt upon the question it is not proposed to introduce any legislation respecting it. It may interest the House to know that attention was called to a similar occurrence in the years 1818 and 1845, and some learned papers were written upon the subject, to which I shall be glad to refer the hon. Member. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that some arrangement of the kind was necessary, as otherwise Easter might fall on different days
  *Reference may be made to The Parliamentary History, Vol. xiv., p. 979, for an account of "Proceedings in the Lords on the Bill for regulating the Commencement of the Year, and for Correcting the Calendar now in use" (1751). The speech of the Earl of Chesterfield in introducing this measure is, unfortunately, not preserved, but an account of it will be found in No. 215 of the Chesterfield "Letters." The speech of the Earl of Macclesfield (reproduced in the History), in seconding the motion for Second Reading, abounds in astronomical lore and historical detail, and gives a complete account of the methods adopted for the finding of the date of Easter, commencing—naturally—with the rule laid down by the Council of Nice in 325.

  931
  in different parts of the United Kingdom, which would not promote unity; and, as a learned writer, speaking of the subject, said, "The Church cares more for peace and concord than for the equinox or the moon."

  SCOTTISH SECONDARY EDUCATION GRANT.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in those parts of Scotland which were excluded from a share of the Secondary Education grant under the Minute of 27th April last; whether he will specify the districts thus excluded and state whether the Act of 1898, which applies to the whole of Scotland, justifies such exclusion; whether he is aware that in Banffshire excellent secondary education is provided in the secondary departments of State-aided schools, and that there is no immediate prospect of higher class secondary or technical schools, which are alone entitled to the grant, being established in the county; whether the Secretary for Scotland has considered a letter of 1st December last from the County Committee on Secondary Education, pointing out that the effect of the Minute will be to draw away the best pupils to a distance and cause deterioration of the elementary schools, with a tendency to rural depopulation; and whether he will reconsider the Minute with reference to the facts and arguments set forth in that letter.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The conditions under which the grant in question is distributed apply equally to all parts of Scotland, and no district is at any disadvantage except in so far as it fails to fulfil these conditions. The arguments which are outlined in the terms of the hon. Member's question were set forth in detail by the Banffshire County Committee, and were fully considered by the Secretary for Scotland and dealt with by him in correspondence. The letter of 1st December has also been considered, but it does not add anything to the case, as previously stated. There is no intention of altering the policy laid down by the Minute of 27th April.

  LIMERICK AND CORK POSTMEN— RATE OF PAY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as
  932
  representing the Postmaster General, whether, although the scales of pay at the Limerick and Cork Post Offices were the same until 1898, Cork men are now on a higher pay scale than Limerick; and what are the grounds which justify this difference, against which the Limerick postmen have unsuccessfully petitioned the Department.
  MR. HANBURY: As stated in reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member on the 1st August last, the general higher rate of wages at Cork and the greater size and importance of the town as compared with Limerick are considered to justify the payment of the Cork postmen on a higher scale.

  THE MAAMTRASNA MURDERERS (1882).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether there are any of the Maamtrasna prisoners still in custody; if so, how many; where are they confined; what is the condition of their health; and whether it is intended to reconsider their sentences.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Three of the prisoners referred to in this question, who were sentenced to death and had their sentences commuted, are still in custody. Two of them, namely Martin and Thomas Joyce, are confined in Mary borough Prison, and the third, Patrick Joyce, is in Mount joy Prison. The Medical Member of the Prisons Board reports that Martin Joyce is in possession of good health and strength, that Thomas Joyce is in good health, and that the health of Patrick Joyce is fairly good. The cases of these convicts were under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant so recently as October last, and will again come up for consideration in the ordinary way at the usual intervals, or sooner on memorial, if special circumstances require.

  BALLIVOR NATIONAL SCHOOL—ASSAULT OF A PUPIL BY MASTER.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the master of Ballivor National School, Mr. Fox, has been convicted before County Court Judge Curran and fined £40 for assaulting a boy pupil, and that this is the second convic-

  933
  tion against this teacher for assaulting a pupil; and whether he is still in charge of Ballivor School, or engaged in any capacity on it, and whether the Commissioners of National Education intend to take any and what action in the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON: The case of the teacher referred to has been before the Commissioners, who have directed that the payment of his salary shall cease as from the end of the present month.

  BALLIVOR DISPENSARY DOCTOR'S FEES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the dispensary doctor of Ballivor full fees were paid by the litigant in whose interest he attended court, and the union was charged with the payment of his substitute; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to relieve the rates of Trim Union of such payments.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no information as to whether the doctor was paid his fees or not. I have already, in reply to a question of the hon. Member, informed him that the Local Government Board have been advised that a doctor who is compelled under subpœna to attend a court of justice is temporarily incapacitated from performing his duties within the meaning of the Relief Act, and that the Board of Guardians were bound, therefore, to make provision for the care of the sick poor during his absence by employing and paying a temporary substitute. I also stated that the doctor, if obliged to pay his substitute out of the expenses he receives as a witness, must be out of pocket by reason of his obedience to the subpœna. My answer on this latter point is not correctly reported in the Parliamentary Debates of the 1st instant.

  LAND SUB-COMMISSIONERS— SITTINGS IN COUNTY LEITRIM.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (for Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL): On behalf of my hon. friend, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that notice was served on upwards of fifty applicants for the fixing of fair rents of their holdings situate in the districts of Glencolombkiln and Kilcar that their applica-
  934
  tions would be heard by a sub-commission sitting at Killybegs, a distance of upwards of thirty miles from some of their holdings; whether he is aware that the hearing of these cases has been adjourned till after Easter; and whether steps will be taken to secure the hearing of these cases in Carrick, which can be reached by the tenants with less inconvenience, and is nearer their holdings.
  MR. ATKINSON: With regard to the first paragraph, I would refer to my reply to the similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 2nd instant. At the sitting of the Sub-Commissioners at Killybegs on the 1st instant application was made for the adjournment of a number of cases, and in granting the adjournment it was arranged that the cases should be heard at Carrick on a date to be fixed hereafter.

  IRISH PUBLIC WORKS ASSISTANT SURVEYORS.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of assistant surveyors employed by the Board of Public Works in Ireland; whether their duties comprise the preparation of plans and specifications for new buildings and improvements, the inspection of national schools and parochial houses, post offices, and police barracks, and frequently situated in three and four counties; and what are the salaries of these officials.
  MR. HANBURY: The number of assistant surveyors is eleven—namely, five first class and six second class. The statement in the second paragraph is substantially accurate, but the assistant surveyors do not prepare the plans and specifications for important new buildings and improvements, such as new post offices. This is done by the three principal surveyors, who also check and, if necessary, revise the plans and specifications prepared by the assistant surveyors for minor new works and maintenance. The salaries of the assistant surveyors are:—First class, £310–15–400 per annum; second class, £200–10–300 per annum.

  IRISH COUNTY SURVEYORS' SALARIES.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief

  935
  Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in what counties of Ireland have the salaries of county surveyors been increased by the Local Government Board beyond the amounts decided upon as sufficient by the county councils; and upon what grounds have the views of the local bodies conversant with the duties to be performed by these officials been ignored and set aside in some cases.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BalFour): In fourteen counties the surveyors have appealed to the Local Government Board against the salaries proposed to be given to them by the councils, and in these cases the Board have increased the salaries. The counties are Carlow, Galway West Riding, Queen's, Tipperary South Riding, Waterford, Westmeath, Antrim, Cork West Riding, Kerry, Kilkenny, Leitrim, Mayo North and South Riding, and Wexford. In the eight last-mentioned counties the councils proposed to allow the surveyors no increase of salary, notwithstanding their admittedly increased duties, thus entirely ignoring the provisions of Section 115 (18) of the Act. In several Counties the salary of the surveyor is still under consideration, As regards the second paragraph, I must refer to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for West Kerry on the 9th inst.*
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman point out what are the increased duties which necessitate the increase in salaries?
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot state them in detail at the moment.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot argue the matter.

  ULSTER AGRICULTURAL AND DAIRY SCHOOL AND HENRY TRUST.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he has seen the scheme for the administration and management of the Ulster Agricultural and Dairy School and Henry Trust, as approved by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on 22nd June, 1899.
  * See page 492 of this volume.
  936
  Whether its objects are to maintain or assist in maintaining an agricultural and dairy school and farm for the sons and daughters of farmers, and other persons born in the province of Ulster, for instructing them in the science and practice of agriculture, dairy farming, and all other subjects akin to these. Whether there is, from property accumulated for a number of years, a sum of above £12,000 now available to assist in starting the farm and school on fifty acres of land, near Down Patrick, which have been acquired for the purpose; and, whether, as £10,000 have been allocated by the Government to aid the Minister Agricultural School, the Irish Department of Agriculture will contribute a like sum for the Ulster Agricultural and Dairy School, in order that it may be started at once and suitable buildings erected under the auspices and subject to the approval of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): The answers to the first three paragraphs in the question are in the affirmative. I cannot give the specific undertaking asked for in the fourth paragraph, but when the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act comes into operation the Department will, in conference with the trustees, consider the advisability of supplementing the funds of the Henry trust, and carrying out the instructions of the founder. Under the scheme approved last year by the Lord Chancellor for Ireland, preference has to be given to a particular parish in the selection of pupils for agricultural instruction. This provision could hardly apply to public funds. The Attorney General has consented to bring the scheme again before the Lord Chancellor with a view to see whether it can be modified so as to meet this objection.

  STREET PREACHING IN CORK.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that street preachers are at present creating disturbances in Cork; and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to this practice.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that on Sunday last an attack was made by a large crowd on the preachers who were conducting open-air services in the streets of Cork. Owing, however, to the prompt intervention of the police, no serious injury, I am happy to say, was sustained by any of the party, although two of them were unfortunately knocked down in the struggle that took place. With regard to the second paragraph, the hon. Member must be aware that the legality of street preaching has frequently been discussed in this House. The practice, unless it amounts to an obstruction of the public streets, is no offence by common or statute law, and the police have no power to put a stop to it, as suggested.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are plenty of places of worship for all creeds in Cork?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  MURDER OF MR. BIRD AT BANTRY— EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS FROM THE JUSTICES' EXAMINATION.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say on what grounds the press were excluded from the recent investigation relative to the Ban try murder case; and whether instructions will be given that representatives of the press shall be admitted to any further proceedings.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Justices in the exercise of their powers expressly conferred upon them by the 9th Section of the Petty Sessions Act excluded the press because they considered, rightly in my opinion, that it was more conducive to the administration of justice at the present stage of the case so to do than to admit the press. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative. There is no power to give such instructions.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether such matters are always left to the discretion of the local magistrates?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, it is entirely within the discretion of the bench whether they shall exclude the press.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, hitherto, in cases of this kind—?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice should be given.

  IRISH PRISONS—LIBRARY REGULATIONS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as Chairman of the Irish Prisons Board, in how many gaols in Ireland are prisoners allowed one book per month for secular reading; whether the single volume is only given to prisoners who are confined for terms over two months, and then only permitted at end of first month; whether such books can only be obtained from the prison library; and if the number of such books available for prisoners is regulated by any standard or fixed principle, or if it is meagre in county prisons as a rule.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. Balfour): My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary is not Chairman of the Irish Prisons Board, as stated by the hon. Member. In all local and minor prisons in Ireland every industrious and well-conducted prisoner who can read receives one secular book at a time. The book is not given for a month, but is changed at the discretion of the Governor. As regards the second paragraph, every prisoner receives a secular book on admission into prison. In the case of ordinary prisoners the books can only be obtained from the prison library, but first-class misdemeanants and prisoners awaiting trial are permitted, at their own expense and subject to the approval of the Visiting Committee, to obtain books in addition to those supplied by the prison. The supply of books in Irish local prisons is not a meagre one. A grant is annually made for the purchase of books, and the supply is constantly increasing.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that prisoners are allowed a secular book to read during the first month, and that if a prisoner finishes the book in the course of the second month he will be allowed another?
  MR. ATKINSON: The book is changedas I have stated, at the discretion of the Governor.

  IRISH MEDICAL AND SANITARY OFFICERS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if it is competent for medical officers of health and sanitary officers under the poor law guardians who are in receipt of emoluments from the ratepayers to hold in the same district the honorary and responsible position of aldermen and county councillors, under whose control arises matters affecting other officers of the poor law guardians.
  MR. ATKINSON: As a general rule a man cannot be the paid officer or servant of or contractor to a county or district council, or municipal body, of which he is himself a member. If the hon. Gentleman desires a more definite opinion I must ask him to refer to a concrete case.

  VISIT OF THE QUEEN TO IRELAND— SUGGESTED VISIT TO BELFAST.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether influential representations have been made from Belfast to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as to the satisfaction with which the inhabitants of that city would receive a visit from Her Majesty during the Queen's stay in Ireland; and whether the matter will be dutifully laid before Her Majesty, with a view to ascertain the Queen's pleasure concerning the desired visit to the capital of Ulster.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Her Majesty's Ministers are offering no advice to Her Majesty in regard to her movements during her approaching visit to Ireland, which, as my hon. friend knows, is of a private character.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state on what date, and at what hour, it is proposed to take the Report on Army Estimates, Vote 1, which has not been discussed.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to-night to make further progress with Vote 2 of the Army Estimates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that cannot be taken after twelve. If my memory serves me, Report of Supply stands before the Vote to which he refers, but I hope the Report may be reached in reasonable time.

RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH—DISTURBANCES DIRECTED AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
SIR R. T. REID: rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the recent serious disturbances in many parts of the country," but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,
*MR. SPEAKER: called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen, he called upon—
SIR R. T. REID: I, in common with a a great number of gentlemen in this House, regret very much the necessity which has arisen for moving the adjournment of the House in reference to this matter. I expected that when my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition put his question in regard to these serious disturbances the answer of the Leader of the House would have shown not only an entire disapproval of these disgraceful scenes on the part of the Executive Government of the day, but also a determination on their part to guard the right of free speech, to which we have all been accustomed for so long, and which, I think, none of us are disposed to part with without a very strong protest. But, unfortunately the tone and substance of the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury was really more in the nature of a lecture to people who had not asked his advice than an indication that he was prepared to do his duty in preserving the right of free speech.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If language means anything, I said in the most explicit, categorical, and unmistakable way that everything that could be done would be done.
SIR R. T. REID: The right hon. Gentleman expressed himself in this way

941
—that he deprecated the disturbances. But it is his duty to have the offenders punished.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am really very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but he is misquoting my views. I said, among other things, that I deprecated very strongly these proceedings, but I said in addition to that, that the duty, as the hon. Member well knows, of preventing the disturbance and punishing offenders rested with the local authorities, and all the assistance we could give them in carrying out that duty would be given to them.
SIR R. T. REID: It is not in the slightest degree my intention to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but the House has heard the whole of his answer, and I am entitled to hold and to express the opinion that that answer was not such an answer as ought to have come from a Minister of the Crown under the grave circumstances in which the question was put. ["Oh, oh!"] I hope, however, that at all events right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will respect the right of free speech in this House. Even if they are not prepared to respect that right outside the House, we are determined to assert our rights here in the matter. I wish to advert to the nature of these meetings and the nature of the disturbances which have taken place. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, in the first place—or at least I understand him so—as if these meetings were public meetings, and, in the second place, as though the disturbances had been confined to places in which attempts had been made to hold meetings. Neither of those assumptions is accurate. Let me advert to some of these instances. There was a meeting broken up at Mile End, when an attack was made by some hundreds of persons; railings and staircases were broken, and several people cut and injured. There was another wise at Thornbury, where a meeting was stopped by a mob of about 200 persons, who smashed the windows, and perpetrated various acts or violence. A local timber merchant sent a letter to the press giving his experience. He said that he was seized by about a dozen men, thrown violently to the ground, kicked and knocked insensible; that there was only one policeman on the spot; that he had about 1,400
942
yards to go through the main street to reach his residence, in traversing which distance he was knocked down twelve or thirteen times. There was another case at Exeter Hall, in which a meeting was convoked by tickets, the public not being invited. My right hon. friend beside me reminds me that the Government are expressly responsible for peace in the metropolis. In regard to that meeting, notice was given beforehand to the police and assistance was requested in anticipation of some disturbance. While a Member of this House was addressing that meeting there was a most violent attack by hundreds of persons, and a free fight took place, lasting about twenty minutes, in which blows were exchanged, and there was very serious danger to the women as well as to the men at that meeting. There were thousands of people congregated in the Strand, many of whom were riotous and disorderly, and I am not aware that any steps have been taken to bring before the magistrates the persons responsible for this disgraceful scene. There was another case in Edinburgh, an account of which was given in the Scotsman newspaper. A crowd of about 2,000 people contrived to force an entry into the Queen Street Hall, and I am sorry to say that amongst the crowd that took part in the attack were some of the Yeomanry Sharpshooters. Mr. Cronwright-Schreiner was present on that occasion—an Englishman from Cape Colony who married a German lady, and who came over to this country as a loyal British subject, with no desire except that of reasoning with the public in regard to the best methods of preserving the South African dominions to this country. He may be right or he may be wrong in his opinion; that has nothing whatever to do with the matter. He entertains honest opinions, which are shared by thousands of our fellow-countrymen in South Africa, and he is entitled to have—I will not say a hearing, because people are not bound to go and hear unless they think fit—but he is entitled to protection of life and limb while he is discharging the duty which is open to every citizen in a law-abiding country. This gentleman was roughly handled. He was chased to his hotel, where I am sorry to say the threats of force were so great that he was compelled to leave in order to prevent the hotel itself being attacked

943
and seriously damaged. There are a number of other places—
LORD BALCARRES: How many?
SIR R. T. REID: There are quite a number of them. The list I have here is by no means complete, but these are some of the places contained in it—Paddington, Sheffield, York, West Bromwich, Canterbury, Rams gate, Exeter Hall, Midhurst, Gloucester, Weston-super-Mare, Highbury, Northampton, New Cross, Peter head, Redruth, Leicester, Brierley Hill, Dundee, Glasgow, Gateshead, Derby, Norwich, and Reading. ["Scarborough."] There are other places to which I ought to refer, and one is the case of Scarborough. In Scarborough there was a reception—not a public meeting at all—in Messrs. Rowntree's café, a place known to everybody who has visited Scarborough. Every window in that café was smashed by an infuriated crowd, largely drunk, I believe, as most of these crowds are on these occasions. All the windows were smashed also at Messrs. Rowntree's grocery premises, and the riot continued until two o'clock in the morning, and, damage was done, according to the Westminster Gazette, which was estimated to be considerably upwards of £1,000. At last the Riot Act was read at about two o'clock in the morning, and the military were called out. I have given so far the references to a number of other cases, but these are the cases in which meetings took place, most of them private meetings, where evidently, by some organised mob, a terror for life and limb was created, and apparently the police were unable to offer an adequate protection at the time. Let me turn to other cases in which there was no public meeting at all, and I will only give a couple of cases. There was the case of Midhurst. At that place there was no public meeting, and no such provocation as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House suggests. There was a great deal of smashing of plate-glass windows, some women were injured, and there were placards published in the streets suggesting and inciting violence against persons who were called pro-Boers. [Ministerial cheers.] I do not know whether hon. Gentleman opposite think that is the way to discourage violence in the different parts of this country. As a
944
matter of fact, in most cases, the people who were attacked, whose windows were smashed, and whose wives and children were terrified, disclaimed entirely having any sympathy whatever with what are called pro-Boer views. They were persons who had been attacked sometimes in the newspaper press, and in other instances by the scurrilous falsehoods repeated about other men's opinions; but whatever their opinions may be, what possible right or justification is there for men or women in their own homes in this country being attacked by a riotous mob and being driven to fly for protection to other places outside the town? There was a disgraceful occurrence at Stratford-upon-Avon. There the rioting continued for two or three days. One night the wrecking was done upon a very considerable scale. Several houses had every particle of glass smashed, and in one house the furniture was largely destroyed. There were some gentlemen of the name of Bullard who were made particularly the object of these attacks. They had their house broken into, their windows smashed, and the inmates of the house were terrified. In this case there had been no meeting of any sort or kind, and Messrs. Bullard wrote a letter to the papers which will explain what their position was, and I will read that letter.
COLONEL MILWARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Bullard are commencing legal proceedings, and under those circumstances is it desirable to discuss this point?
SIR R. T. REID: I do not think that anything I shall say will interfere in the least with legal proceedings. I am speaking on this question not as a matter of civil right between Messrs. Bullard and these who injured their property, but as a matter of public decency and public order.
COLONEL MILWARD: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he said that the house of Messrs. Bullard was broken into—
*Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not interrupt in order to argue the case with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
SIR R. T. REID: My information is derived partly from their own letter, and

945
I shall be glad if the House will allow me to read it. [The hon. and learned Member read the letter, in which Messrs. Bullard said they were accused of floating a Boer flag when there was an English victory, and of desiring that all the English in South Africa might be killed, but there was not a word of truth in the accusations. They added that they had only protested that the war was unnecessary, and might and ought to have been avoided, but the Imperialists of to-day did not allow anyone to have or to express an opinion against the war without being dubbed traitors to their country.] In that case there were two men sent to prison. I do not know myself how many persons have been punished in connection with the disorders generally, and it is impossible to learn this, because all those particulars are not published in the metropolitan press. But you may take your information from any newspaper you like, either Conservative or Liberal, in the places where these disgraceful scenes of disorder have occurred, and there is no law-abiding person who will doubt that some people ought to be punished. I believe very few indeed have been even summoned. There has been a good deal of drinking in connection with the business, and I think the keepers of public-houses who serve drink to an angry mob already too much excited with liquor ought to be brought to justice. I think those who have organised this disorder—for undoubtedly there are proofs of organisation in connection with many of them—ought to be brought to justice. Those newspapers—and there are not a few of them which have incited the people to do these things ought not to be forgotten in meting out justice, and certainly those people—most of whom are absolutely unable to pay for the damage they have done—who have inflicted such serious damage to property and disgraced the streets of so many of our towns with scenes of this kind ought to be brought to justice without any delay whatever. I wish to make one final observation in connection with this matter. Whether hon. Gentlemen agree with these sentiments or not is a thing which ought not to be allowed to weigh for one single moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House referred to times when he said it was impossible for his party to obtain a hearing in some parts of the country. I am not going to enter
946
into a historical discussion with the right hon. Gentleman. All I can say is this, that at that time, as now, it was the duty of the Government of the day and of those local officials who were responsible to enforce the right of public meeting in favour of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, and although the right hon. Gentleman's views may be for the moment the popular view, the time may come before very long when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends may again have to invoke the same rights we now claim on this side of the House. It is not for one party or one set of views that I claim protection, but it is for the preservation of that right of free speech for which this country has always been renowned. The scenes that have taken place and the disturbances which have occurred at public meetings and with private persons have been absolutely unprecedented in the recent history of this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with this matter in answer to the question put to him in the spirit which we had a right to expect, and I hope that before this debate closes we shall have assurances from the Home Secretary that he will send a circular, in the first instance, to those responsible for public order throughout the country, pointing out the dangerous examples which these instances have afforded and the risk of their repetition; and in the second instance that we shall have the assurance of the Government that they will see that there shall be, I will not say punishment, because that is a matter for the judge or the magistrate, but that the persons who have been guilty of these excesses which have been described in all the towns where they have taken place shall be brought before the tribunals of the law, in order that the right of free speech, and not only that, but the right of peaceful and quiet residence in their own homes, may be assured to all law-abiding citizens in this country. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir R. T. Reid.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I cannot help thinking that in what the

947
hon. and learned Gentleman has said he has somewhat exaggerated the case. I do not wish in the slightest degree to differ from him in the severe terms in which he has spoken of the riotous damage to property which in a few cases has taken place during the last few weeks. I certainly did not understand that the answer of my right hon. friend the Leader of the House to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition was in any sense different from that which I now desire to express, namely, that the Government are prepared to support the local authorities in doing their duty by putting down such breaches of the law. I am very much surprised at the warmth with which the hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for having failed in their duty. Wherein have the Government failed in their duty? I regret as much as the hon. and learned Gentleman or any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House—and I am sure I am speaking for all on this side of the House—the rowdyism and ruffianism which have mixed with the enthusiasm which certain of our victories in the course of the war have brought about in some of our cities, and which have led to certain outrages which cannot be sufficiently deplored. But wherein have the Government failed in their duty? I know nothing of the cases of Mile End, Thornbury, and one or two other cases referred to by hon. and learned Gentlemen, but I know something of the cases of Scarborough and Stratford-on-Avon, in both of which there were disgraceful rioting and wanton destruction of property. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there was some organisation which brought about this unhappy state of things, I can assure him he is absolutely and entirely mistaken. Neither was there incitement by some local newspaper, which the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks ought to be prosecuted by the Government, nor was there incitement by any political club or organisation, and there was no knowledge that such things were about to take place. If I had known that this matter was to have been discussed to-day, I would have brought down with me the report I received from the authorities at Scarborough. I do not know that the matter is yet at an end, and I shall therefore speak of it with some reticence, but the report I have had
948
shows that there was no anticipation whatever that there would be any disturbance on that particular evening. The public meeting which Mr. Schreiner was announced to address was called for the next day, but on the previous evening Mr. Rowntree, formerly a respected Member of the House, and several of his friends held a reception in a café in one of the main streets of the town. I do not know if it was generally known that Mr. Schreiner was in the town. There was a rumour that he was coming. These things flew about, someone asked for the protection of the police, and the presence of the police in unusual numbers about the café where Mr. Rowntree and his friends were very likely may have called some public attention to it. At any rate there was a large crowd, and totally against the efforts of the police to prevent it, some persons not yet identified, but who, I hope, may be identified, flung stones and did some serious damage. There is no dispute whatever about that. After that the authorities did the best they could. The mayor being apprehensive of further disturbance and riot sent for the Militia, who came later on in the evening, and received a most cordial welcome from the inhabitants. I fail to see what more the local authorities or the Government could have done. The hon. and learned Gentleman finds fault with me or with the Government for not having prevented the smashing of these windows. I do not see how we could have done that, but I regret the occurrence very much, and I shall support the local authorities, if it lies with me, in any prosecution that may be possible for causing the damage.
SIR R. T. REID: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say—as I think I ought to say—that the motive power for this motion was that I and others sitting near me thought that the tone and style of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—although I entirely acquit him of that intention after what he has said—was precisely of that character which is calculated not to stop, but to encourage—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask you. Sir, on a point of order, whether the adjournment was moved on the tone and style of my answer?
*MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that that was the subject. What he said was that it was the motive power which induced him to move the adjournment.
*SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I will leave that question to be settled by other authorities, but it certainly appears to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood the answer of my right hon. friend. But I am now dealing with facts, and I am endeavouring to show that the local authorities were not to blame, that certain rioters were to blame, and I hope their punishment may follow, and that Her Majesty's Government cannot be blamed. With regard to the Stratford-on-Avon case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says there was no meeting. There was a procession through the streets to celebrate the relief of Ladysmith, and certain young fellows got very noisy and demonstrative, and a large crowd passing down one of the main streets of that very quiet place made an attack on the windows and property of Mr. Bullard, who, rightly or wrongly, was an unpopular person with certain of the demonstrators on that occasion. There was no warning to the local authorities that anything of the kind was going to happen. No one justifies the action of these people, and it is a monstrous thing that a man's property should be damaged in that way. But with reference to the letter from Mr. Bullard, which the right and learned Gentleman read, there is another view of the case, namely, that Mr. Bullard had been rather aggressive on the occasion, and that if he had not done certain things he would not have been attacked. I do not want to press that for a moment, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman having read the letter, I wish to say that in my opinion at any rate, having read both sides of the question, there is an answer to it. Some of the persons have been punished, and this very day some more of the ringleaders have been brought before the magistrates, and within a very short time Mr. Bullard is to prefer his claim for compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886. It is perfectly obvious that under such circumstances there is no room for the action of the Government, and I do not see what
950
more the Government could have done. I have expressed in answer to questions in this House, my sense of the necessity of impressing on local authorities the duty of seeing that the law is carried out, and that if there is rioting or damage to property, measures should if possible be taken to punish the rioters and to prevent the recurrence of the riots. Something has been said about the meeting at Exeter Hall at which the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth was present. It may be that the police were warned—I do not know whether they were or not—but I have not heard of any row or disturbance in the Strand. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do that the police are not justified in being present in Exeter Hall to keep a meeting orderly. What they have to do if there is reason to believe that there is going to be a riotous disturbance either inside or outside the meeting is to be ready in sufficient force to stop tumultuous disturbance or injury to person or property. If I understood the complaint of the hon. Baronet the other night, it was that the police were a little late in arriving on the scene, whether because of the pressure of the crowd outside or not I do not myself know. The other cases are, I admit, serious cases. I have shown that they are being dealt with. The local authorities ought to be encouraged to do their duty to prevent such riots, and the destruction of property in the future, and in doing so they will receive the support of the Government. At the same time, I must say that when public feeling is so excited as it is at the present moment, and when it is obvious that meetings which at other times would be harmless are now likely to be provocative of disturbance, there ought to be some consideration for the maintenance of the public peace. I do not say it was used in these cases, but there have been occasions in which very strong language has been used in favour of those who are now our enemies. Whatever may be said about free speech, and no one favors it more strongly than I do, there are times when men's feelings are strongly excited, and when allowance ought to be made for it, and those who are calling these public meetings ought to feel that they have some responsibility cast upon them, and that they ought to be very careful not to endanger the public peace.
*MR. BROADHURST: The speech we have listened to to-night on this great question of public liberty has caused the greatest dismay in the minds of all constitutional persons in this House. The Home Secretary's unfortunate remark in regard to the disturbance at Stratford-on-Avon would seem to imply that if a man is unpopular in a district or amongst his neighbours from any cause whatsoever, an attack upon his person and his property is the less censurable on the part of the mob.
*SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: What?
*MR. BROADHURST: Well; that it goes in extenuation of the illegal act.
*SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I entirely repudiate that; I most warmly repudiate it. I said that certain young men, enthusiastic over British victories, were marching down the streets and most unjustifiably took advantage of the unpopularity of a certain gentleman and broke his windows. I do not justify it.
*MR. BROADHURST: The unfortunate attempt at correction by the right hon. Gentleman has only made matters worse. What the Home Secretary did say was this—[HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!] Let us have free speech here. The Home Secretary, with that mildness of manner for which he is renowned, said that certain young men were in an excited condition, and that they were marching about the streets, collecting larger numbers to the crowd, and that they unjustifiably attacked this house and this person; but he added, "You must remember this man was unpopular." [Hon. Members: No, no!]
*SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I said that this man was unpopular and held unpopular views, but I did not endeavour to argue that that justified what they did. I said that when the crowd were passing down the street, a flag was displayed, or something of that kind, and that they, or some of them, took part in an action which I deplore as much as the hon Gentleman.
*MR. BROADHURST: I think I am within the knowledge of the House, but I will not contest the Home Secretary's explanation. I had no intention to inter-
952
rupt or to prevent his wish to moderate the effect of the language employed by him in that unfortunate speech which he has just made. But if the unpopularity of any citizen is to be any excuse for an attack upon his property there is an end to public rights and public liberties. I remember when the Colonial Secretary was the most unpopular man in England in Conservative quarters; but would that have been any justification, or mitigation, or any excuse or explanation for an attack upon his property as well as upon his person? Why, the ruling is monstrous; and I never before heard such revolutionary views expressed in this House as have been expressed by the Home Secretary, and indicated—[Hon. Members: "Agreed, agreed!" and "Order, order!"]—and also substantionally expressed by the Leader of the House. The first duty of a Government in any civilised country is to protect its citizens in the exercise of all legal rights, and the moment the Government fails to discharge that duty it fails to been titled to the confidence and respect of its citizens. Now, the Home Secretary, of course, cannot be expected to know intuitively what is likely to happen on any given night, in any given place, and at any given hour of the night. But the Home Secretary knows perfectly well that for six months peaceable citizens have run great risks, and have on many occasions met with very rough and illegal treatment at the hands of riotous assemblies of people, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to have learned some elementary lessons in offering protection to his fellow-countrymen during the course of these six months. I know what would have happened, and so does the Home Secretary know, if there had been a strike near the docks, or in the cotton district. [An Hon. Member: Or in Ireland.] I leave it to my hon. friends from Ireland to deal with their own country; but I know what would have happened had it been a body of trades unionists on strike. The right hon. Gentleman would not have waited for a second attack. If there had been an attack in one village he would not have waited till the next night for fear that there would have been an attack in another village. He would have had the troops down there, and these troops would not have been received with the enthusiastic greetings of welcome that the Home Secretary describes

953
the troops had been received with by the riotous persons assembled round the café at Scarborough. There would have been all the military force, even amounting to 1,000 soldiers, rightly and justly employed by the Government, to hold back the people illegally assembled and illegally acting contrary to the rights of the citizens and breaking the law. Why has there been no arrest here? If it had been 500 cotton spinners or miners congregated together they would have been arrested in batches, and some one would have been brought to law and made to answer for his riotous proceedings. The effect of this night's debate will be, I fear, if the country takes its lead from the two speeches made from the Treasury bench, that there is an apology for riotous action. I am not a pro-Boer. [Hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] I am not a pro-Boer, but I am in favour of liberty of speech. I have been in public life for a great many years. I have taken part for more than forty years in proceedings at public meetings, and I dare anyone to say that I ever lifted my finger in the whole of my life to prevent the full and free discussion of any subject of public interest that might be occupying the public mind. What I and those who laboured with me have conceded to others we claim at the hands of the Government for ourselves. I do hope that some hon. Members of this House who can speak with great authority on constitutional rights will yet press home upon the Government the necessity of giving some semblance of their sense of the serious position into which this country has drifted, when public rights are denied, private property attacked, and citizens are unable to freely and legally entertain their friends on their own property without exposure to grave personal danger. I sincerely trust that a great lesson will be learned from these extraordinary disclosures, these extraordinary confessions on the part of the Government that have characterised the part they have taken in the debate this evening.
*COLNEL MILWARD: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs for interrupting him. All I wished was to call attention—I am not quite sure that he was in the House when it was stated—to the fact that legal proceedings were commencing in regard to the case of
954
Messrs. Bullard. The right hon. Gentleman read an ex parte statement, in which it was said that Messrs. Bullard's house was broken into. But there is another side to the case. I have seen in the papers, and I believe that evidence, at all events, has been tendered, that a great deal of the disturbance arose from the fact that as the mob approached Messrs. Bullard's shop young Mr. Bullard issued from the shop with a gun and struck a man across the head. I would like to say something about what the Home Secretary said in regard to the organisation of the disturbances. It has been stated that the disturbances were organised at Stratford-on-Avon by the Working Men's Conservative Club. I may say that strict inquiry has been made into the matter, and, so far as that club is concerned, the members are absolutely guiltless of any complicity in the matter, except, as has happened in London and elsewhere, that three or four voting men, elated by the news of the victories in which we all rejoice so much, started, marching down the street, singing popular songs. I am perfectly certain that there was no organisation whatever. The respectable inhabitants of Stratford-on-Avon deeply regret the rioting which has taken place there. I do not think it was so serious as has been made out. If it was it has been condoned, as three persons have been punished, and two other persons have been brought before the magistrates. In behalf of the whole of the inhabitants of Stratford-on-Avon, which is one of the quietest places to be found in England, I say that they deeply regret that there should have been any rioting or any injury to private property, and that while, in common with everyone, they rejoice at the turn events have taken in South Africa their earnest desire was that these rejoicings should not subject to loss any person, popular or unpopular, in the borough.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very anxious not to say a word which would create more excitement in this House, because I do feel that the House of Commons ought to be the principal guardian of freedom of speech and of peace in all parts of the country. I, however, wish to state in a sentence the reason why I think the motion made by my hon. and learned friend was justified and was called for

955
I confess I was not satisfied with, the statement which was made by the Leader of the House in reference to these disturbances. He said, as I am sure every man in his position would say, that these disturbances were greatly to be condemned, and that the ringleaders in them ought to be punished. The Home Secretary also said—and so far it is satisfactory—that the Government feel their responsibility in the matter, and that they are prepared to discharge it. But the conclusion of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, seemed to me to be capable of an interpretation which would have the effect not of restraining but, I will not say of promoting rioting, but of discouraging the right of public meeting by people who hold opinions which are not popular with the majority, and which are capable of exciting rioting and outrages of this character. I hope I may have been mistaken in that interpretation, but I confess that it had the effect in my mind of asserting that people who do not hold the opinions which unquestionably are the opinions of the great majority of the people ought to abstain from public and even, as I understand, from private meetings. In my view nothing could be more injurious than that such an opinion as that should go forth with the sanction of the House of Commons. I say we ought to maintain that people who hold opinions which are unpopular ought not to be discouraged, but should feel that they have a right to express those opinions, and that all the power of the House of Commons and of the Executive Government should be employed in protecting them in doing so. It is because I think some of the expressions used by the right hon. Gentleman were capable of the interpretation of a warning to people who hold unpopular opinions not to express them, that I think it was necessary that this matter should be raised in the House, and it is only from that point of view that I shall support this motion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as from an interpolated remark of the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment, that what we are really discussing is not so much what has occurred recently in the country, not so much these most unhappy attacks upon person and property which have taken
956
place at Stratford-on-Avon and Scarborough, as the style and temper of the reply which I gave a few moments ago to the House; and so accurately and happily did the learned Gentleman forecast when he came down to the House what would be the tone and temper of my reply, that, not only was it a matter of common notoriety and knowledge that the adjournment was going to be moved, but he was prepared with a whole armful of papers. I was not aware that such an accurate forecast of the reply I gave to the House at question time could have been made, and as my style is apparently of so subtle a character I the more regret that in does not meet with the approval of Gentlemen opposite. By the courtesy of the press I have a verbatim transcript of the shorthand notes of the reply I gave to the House. I have re-read it during the course of the recent criticisms passed upon my reply, and I still say I see in that reply nothing to complain of. [Cheers.] I will not trouble the House with it again unless they wish to hear it. [Opposition cries of "Read!" and "No!"] I take it that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to hear it read again. [Cries of "Read, read!"] I have not the slightest objection. I said—
"Every case reported to my right hon. friend the Home Secretary has been carefully examined, and every such unhappy occurrence will be examined. There is not the slightest evidence that there has been any organisation of these demonstrations, which are absolutely spontaneous in their character as far as the evidence which has come before my right hon. friend is concerned. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is the local authorities who are responsible both for the maintenance of orders and for the punishment of transgressors, and any aid which can be given to them in carrying out those duties, shall, of course, be readily afforded. I myself strongly deprecate these demonstrations, and I expect no good of them. I think that they are contrary to the best traditions of English life. For a large part of my political life I have belonged to a party which was unable to hold meetings in certain portions of the country; and therefore I am at least as anxious on this subject as the right hon. Gentleman who has been more fortunately situated than I myself could possibly be. I think that the, responsibility rests not only upon the local authorities and upon those concerned in these unfortunate proceedings, but also upon those who called the meetings. It must be remembered that public feeling is necessarily deeply stirred at the present time. In every district of the country there are persons who have lost near relatives or friends in the present war; and nine-tenths of the country—ninety-nine hundredths of the country—believe, rightly or

957
wrongly, that these meetings are called for an object which, if it were effectual, would render the recurrence of these great calamities possible. They think that in no other country in the would, and least of all the Transvaal itself, would such meetings be tolerated; and they are aware that the fact of such meetings being held is, by people who know little of our methods and traditions, used abroad as an indication of a divided country, and of a hesitating Government. In these circumstances, the tension of public opinion must necessarily be of a kind affording grave anxiety to those responsible for the public peace; and I venture to add that those who call these meetings ought to be careful lest they ask more of human nature than after all history shows that human nature is capable of giving."
That is what I said. That answer contains three propositions. The first is that the local authorities and not the Government are the responsible persons in repressing disorder and punishing crime, and that the Government will give to them every assistance in their power in carrying out that duty. The second proposition is that these proceedings are in themselves deplorable, and that this interference with free speech is not only contrary, I am sorry to say, not to the universal, but to the best traditions of the country, but does harm and not good to the cause it professes to promote. The third proposition—which I understand is the one disputed—is that the right of free speech in this country is of a kind which ought not to make the persons who wish to give their views to the world absolutely oblivious of the conditions under which they speak and of the disorder to which their speeches may give rise, and of the public difficulties and dangers which may ensue. That proposition has never been disputed by any reasonable man. There was a question asked this afternoon by an Irish Member about some disorder which had taken place in Cork in consequence of a Protestant preaching in the middle of a Roman Catholic town. There are times and there are places in which you ought to be careful how you provoke disorder, whether by Roman Catholics preaching in a Protestant town, or Protestants preaching in a Roman Catholic town. That is an illustration. Is there no responsibility on a person uttering his views as to the time and place at which he utters them? I say there is a great responsibility.
MR. LOUGH: The Attorney General did not say that in his
958
answer. [Cheers, and loud Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I said so.
MR. LOUGH,amid loud Ministerial cries of "Order!" and Opposition cries of "Go on!" attempted to make some further remarks.
*MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said: The hon. Gentleman has no right to interrupt an hon. Member who is speaking. He is not raising any question of order.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR, resuming, said: I can pardon the hon. Gentleman opposite when I remember his anxiety with regard to this question. He observes that the Attorney General did not say so. That is true. It is I who say so, and I presume that I have a right to an opinion which I have expressed not now for the first time in connection with such difficulties. The suggestion that the free public expression of opinion in this country upon the subject of this war has been repressed is really, I think, rather extravagant. In the newspapers of all sorts, in leaflets, in pamphlets, and in speeches, the views of those who are called, rightly or wrongly, pro-Boers, have been fully disseminated through the country, and, in my opinion, it is a duty thrown upon them to consider whether it is within their province—whether their consciences justify them in causing all this difficulty in the maintenance of the public peace by their choice of the occasion and place to express their opinions. It must be remembered, that, while there is and ought to be full circulation given to those views, they are views which, in the nature of the case, whether we like it or not, must be distinctly offensive to the great mass of the people of this country. I am told that the programme, in the form of a sort of catechism of the Peace Committee, runs as follows:—
SIR R. T. REID: What Peace Committee?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It runs: "What do you want to do?—To stop this war. When?—Immediately. Why?—Because we are in the wrong. How?—By confessing our sins, and doing right. What sins?—Lying to cover conspiracy

959
fraud in making false claims, bad faith in going back on our word, wholesale slaughter. How to do right?—To expose and punish the criminals"—I suppose they are the Government—"to compensate their victims"—I suppose they are the Boers—"and to make peace." That may be all right. All I say is, it is not agreeable to the majority of the people of this country.
MR. BARTLEY: Boer money pays for it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Those are sentiments which hon. Gentlemen who support the motion would think it advisable to press on the attention of those who have just lost dear friends and relatives in carrying on this war! Therefore I think that the third proposition which I have enunciated, that there is an obligation on those who hold these meetings, is a doctrine absolutely sound in itself and in no way inconsistent with that freedom of speech which we certainly on this side of the House are as anxious to maintain as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He appears in the first place to have forgotten what the duties of the Home Department are. He appears to believe that it is in the power of my right hon. friend to send down troops and police from London to keep the peace at Stratford-on-Avon. The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake. Everything my right hon. friend can do will be done, but I must again say, at the risk of displeasing the right hon. Gentleman opposite or being thought to give him information upon a bit of political history with which he appears to be imperfectly acquainted—
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Entirely unacquainted.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Entirely unacquainted—I say I could find him countless cases in London, in Scotland, in some of the mining districts of England, and at the present moment in Ireland, where it would not be possible to exercise that right of free speech which the right hon. Gentleman so greatly and properly values, but which has been so often interfered with by some of his best and most loyal supporters. I am sure no one regrets it more than he does, and I hope that when, by the natural evolution of
960
fate, he may be the head of a responsible Government, and his Home Secretary may be appealed to upon like occasions, he will do his best, as we shall do our best, to see that the right of free speech in every legitimate form is safeguarded in every part of Her Majesty's dominions.
MR. MADDISON: As I represent a division of Sheffield that has been affected by mob rule, I venture to say a word or two. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has laid down what I think is a very dangerous doctrine. He took for his illustration the question of the preachers in the city of Cork, and he said that freedom of speech must be conditioned by place, time, and circumstance. He has already told us that human nature can only bear so much. Well, if that means anything it is a justification for the Catholics of Cork doing something to prevent those preachers from the exercise of what I believe is their undoubted liberty, and they would fall back on the philosophic doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman as their justification. But I wish the right hon. Gentleman had come down from the region of philosophy to fact, and had told us where is a suitable place, and what is a suitable time for those of us who—you may call us pro-Boer as much as you like—do believe that this war was unnecessary, who do believe the war was unjust, and who still believe that we love our country as fervently—[Cries of "Oh!"]—yes, who love our country as fervently and enthusiastically as the Hebrews on the otherside—[Cries of "Order!"]
*MR. SPEAKERrequested the hon. Member not to make remarks of a personal character.
MR. MADDISON: I, of course, Mr. Speaker, do not wish to transgress at all. I was led into that, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We believe that we love our country as fervently, and are just as good patriots as those who take a different view; and what I wish to know from the Government is not merely that they shall affirm in so many words that these outrages are to be deprecated—what else could they do?—but that they will give us some assurance that they will take the same steps to prevent riot and outrage as they take during

961
a strike. The right hon. Gentleman twitted my hon. friend the Member for Leicester with having said that he did not know what the duties of the police were. I do not profess to know what the duties of the police are particularly, but this I do know, that while I myself was at Hull during the dockers' strike the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman found some means and some opportunities of sending 100 or 200 mounted police into the town, and he took effective steps not to punish outrage so much as to prevent it. What we want is prevention here. Let me give the case of Sheffield. Last Saturday a meeting was to have been held which was summoned by private circular. One of the signatories of that circular was an hon. Member of this House—the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire. There were five or six signatories besides his own—most of them men known in Sheffield. The proposal was to have a tea, to be given to about 150 friends of peace. The reason why that private meeting was to be held in that way was because my friends in Sheffield took the same view as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, but only from necessity. They said, "Well, the feeling in Sheffield among the rowdy section of the population"—because it is not the ordinary citizen who causes these things; it is the drunken vagabonds, the same class that you can always get; you can turn them out to loot and wreck anything you like. Well, my friends in Sheffield said—"There are the incitements of the press and various other causes, and perhaps it would be as well not to put the public authorities of Sheffield to some considerable trouble, and cause, it may be, injury to ourselves and others, and therefore much as we regret that, in the last year of the century, we have to take such underground methods, nevertheless we will do as law-abiding citizens, and we will have our meeting privately, we will have a cup of tea." That was their determination, but they did one thing. They invited Mr. Cronwright-Schreiner, and the distinct understanding was that it was not to be a meeting where there were to be any set speeches at all, but that they were merely to consult and take counsel as to what were the best steps to educate the people of Sheffield. [Laughter.] I do not appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite in
962
favour of education; but we on this side do not think it treason to educate public opinion. What was the result? That circular was printed in extenso in one of the Sheffield papers. No comment whatever was made, and in these times none was needed to cause a riot. But the evening paper did comment. Certain things were said in that paper, and the net result of it all was that in this great Yorkshire town those law-abiding citizens, with an hon. Member of this House amongst them, were compelled to abandon a purely private meeting to which it was never intended to give the appearance of a public meeting, not even to the extent of the Exeter Hall meeting. But that was not all. Of course a crowd gathered, and while I am glad to say there was no injury to anyone and no damage to property, of course they had to exhibit their patriotism by shouting through the streets and annoying as far as they could without injury certain prominent members of that small committee. Now, I submit that this is only a type of what is happening all over the country. The hon. and learned Member said the list he read was not an exhaustive one. Why, some of the worst cases do not come into the papers at all, and apparently none of them come in to the hands of the Home Secretary. You have to smash £1,000 worth of property before any notice is taken of the disturbances. I note that the Leader of the House is particularly concerned when there is damage to property, but he has never shown the slightest concern for personal safety, although he feels it. I am not trying to impute to him wanton disregard; I know that that is not his feeling; but nevertheless there was the fact that, like a good Tory, he thought only of property—in his speech I mean—and thought nothing of the person. Let me give another case which occurred in London. I refer to a meeting of the Social Democratic Federation. Some of my stillest battles have been fought against my friends the Socialists, who love me as much as they love the worst capitalists. The Social Democratic Federation are a poor body—a body of enthusiasts, but a body of men who have enough to do to manage to hire their little halls and to carry on their propaganda. These men met last Sunday in Harrow Road. What was their experience? Why, at the sound of a bugle—it must be a bugle

963
in these days—some thousand rowdies—they give the number at between 1,000 and 2,000—broke into the hall, broke the windows, and destroyed property to the value of £15. That is a serious state of affairs, and that is going on in all parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said these meetings would not be allowed in any other country than England, but surely he is not going to compare us to continental tyrannies. Does he consider that it is singular that we can do in London what they cannot do in St. Petersburg? Has the new Imperialism reduced England to that level? This is the England of Cromwell. This is the England of the great champions of freedom, and therefore it is quite right that we can do in England what they cannot do in other countries. Right hon. Gentlemen should be very careful how they treat this right of free speech and the question of personal liberty and safety. Along with many of my hon. friends near me I have stood up in times of danger and told the people that force was no remedy and they had no right to use it. But when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the "limits of endurance of human nature" how can we make that appeal to men? "Limits of endurance," what are they? Let me put two cases. Men go to an anti-war meeting and put forward certain views which they believe to be true. Those attending the meeting are given a chance to vote against the resolution. Where does the "limit of human endurance" come in? I will put the other case. A crowd of ragged men and women who have been for three months on strike, who have pawned every little article in the home, who have had only one meal of bread and water for a week; they see Dives going by in his carriage, surrounded by luxury and plenty, when some madcap says, "Let him have a stone, men!" If I were to adopt the philosophy of the right hon. Gentleman I should say, "Well, you are all right; there is a limit to human endurance." But I am not altogether sorry for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, as there may be times coming when the necessity may arise for some justification of such conduct. I only say that it is a shame and humiliation that the elementary principles of free speech should be scouted as they have been in this House to-day.
MR. LOUGH: There are many of us who think we are making a protest of the greatest political importance this afternoon, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I meant to be rude by my interruption when he was speaking, and still less did I intend to be rude to you, Sir, or the House. The point I meant to put was this. When an hon. friend from Ireland asked the Attorney General to express oven the mildest disapproval of those meetings in Cork which are so likely to cause a breach of the peace, he refused to do so.
*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Hon. Members from Ireland asked me no such question, and I gave no such reply. The hon. Member is strangely misinformed. The question was this—
"Whether he is aware that street preachers are at present creating disturbances in Cork, and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to this practice."
The answer I gave was—
"I am informed that on Sunday last an attack was made by a large crowd on the preachers who were conducting open-air services in the streets of Cork. Owing, however, to the prompt intervention of the police, no serious injury, I am happy to say, was sustained by any of the party, although two of them were unfortunately knocked down in the struggle that took place. With regard to the second paragraph, the hon. Member must be aware that the legality of street preaching has frequently been discussed in this House. The practice, unless it amounts to an obstruction of the public streets, is no offence by common or statute law, and the police have no power to put a stop to it, as suggested."
MR. LOUGH: I am exceedingly obliged to the right hon. and learned Member; it is in accordance with the courtesy he always extends to us that we should have been supplied with the full text of his answer. It proves my case to the hilt. What did the police do in Cork? They protected the people holding this meeting. The right hon. Gentleman said the right of free speech was valuable, and would be and had been maintained in Ireland. I know something about Ireland. There has been great bloodshed and disorder in connection with free speech in Ireland, and I approve of the Government maintaining the right of these men to exercise it. What we ask the Government to do to-night is to extend the same liberties to Great Britain which they are so keen to

965
defend in Ireland. The reason we are protracting this debate is that we think the reply of the Government, given by the Home Secretary and by the First Lord of the Treasury, will tend to increase these scenes of disorder which have disgraced the country during the last few months. I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, so I have taken down the exact words. What is the doctrine they have laid down? That if there is great unanimity of opinion people cannot be allowed to express arguments on the other side. ["Oh, oh!"]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman says he took these words down from either my right hon. friend or myself he is entirely mistaken.
MR. LOUGH: No; it was my fault of expression. I unfortunately mixed up two sentences. I intended to express the opinion, which I think is stated by him, that the argument which has been put forward is that if there is a great majority of opinion on one side the minority must be very cautious indeed in expressing their views. The right hon. gentleman accepts that—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not accept either that or anything like it. I said that with a certain condition of public feeling, certain care must be exercised by persons making speeches.
MR. LOUGH: I will press that home a little farther, because it is of the greatest importance. The right hon. Gentleman did say that he personally was in favour of freedom of speech, because he had suffered from the contrary. Then he went on to say, "Remember human nature." He continued that ninety-nine out of one hundred people in this country had lost relatives in this war. ["No."] At any rate, the point was this. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that those who had lost relatives were the people who had interrupted the meetings. ["No."]. I will take another point. The right hon. Gentleman said that no other country would allow such meetings to be held, particularly the Transvaal; and finally he said, that these meetings would give the impression abroad that the country was divided in its opinion as to the war. I think I am generally right in those
966
points. My argument is that every one of those statements was a point in deprecation of, and limiting, the freedom of speech in which he believes.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You must not take me as admitting those phrases.
MR. LOUGH: I will put it this way, and take the full responsibility. In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary did go far this afternoon to limit the freedom of speech in unpopular causes. We on this side maintain that if we are to uphold democratic Government, the more unpopular a cause is the more important it is that all opinions thereupon should be heard. I want to refer to a case which has not been mentioned in detail. My reason for intervening in the debate was that I did not get a satisfactory answer to a question I put to the Home Secretary. I have a slight difficulty in arguing with the Home Secretary inasmuch as he has full official information, which I have not. I am informed that at Highbury on Sunday last a most peaceful meeting had been conducted for an hour and a half when a police officer with twenty constables arrived, and said, "This meeting is likely to promote disorder and it must be brought to an end." The police thereupon pushed the speakers off the platform and violently broke up the meeting. On those facts I put the question. [An Hon Member: They are not facts.] On those statements, then. I do not say a word against the police in London. If they have proper instructions they are an admirable body of men, but if they get a hint that they need not protect these orderly gatherings of citizens they will not do their duty. The third part of my question was, "And whether he can promise that such gatherings should be protected in the future." To that the Home Secretary made no answer at all, he would give no promise of protection to peacefully conducted public meetings. That is my point. Why did not the Home Secretary follow the example of the Attorney General for Ireland, by vindicating the right of free speech in London? The Government will not in the long run consult their own interests by refusing to give fair play to the miserable minority, if it be a miserable minority, who would like to see peace substituted for war, and who view with

967
grave misgivings the proceedings of the country at the present time. It is that we may vindicate this sacred right of the people that I have ventured to intervene in this debate, because I think that that right will not be preserved if the tone of the Government is not altered.
*SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: By the leave of the House, I would like to say that I think the hon. Member has misunderstood the answer I gave him on the subject of the Highbury meeting. I did not give the hon. Member the promise he asked for because I understood he would assume that the police would continue to act, as they have always acted, so as to protect all peaceful meetings. I should have scorned to have implied that such a defence of the police was needed. In answer to the main question, what I said was that the police who were present found that the meeting, which had been conducted in a peaceful and orderly way for some time—I do not know for how long—was becoming very much excited; I will not say for what reason, though I have an opinion. There was a great deal of hooting, animated, in the opinion of the officer in charge, by the violent arguments of the speakers, and, in his view, which was supported by other officers who came up, there was every chance of a disturbance of the peace. Therefore, the meeting was very properly dispersed, and nothing further happened. I really think the police were in no way to blame.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no wish to inflict a long speech on this interesting question, but I desire to make a practical suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is aware that, quite apart from any other powers he possesses in regard to the administration of the police, he has a power, which I do not suggest he should exercise without very careful inquiry, under the Local Government Act of 1888, and the various Police Acts. If he is satisfied that in any particular case, in a county or a county borough, the police, or the standing joint committee who control the police, have not acted up to their full powers and responsibilities, the Home Secretary can, after due inquiry, disallow the whole or any portion of what are popularly known as the Police grants; that is to say, that portion of money
968
Which is paid out of the Local Taxation fund to the Exchequer contribution account of the police authorities within the county or borough, and by them transferred to the fund upon which the police force depends. If these grants are not paid the local ratepayers have to find the money which otherwise would be paid out of the Government contributions. What I suggest is that the Home Secretary should intimate in the proper quarters that if there is any case in which it can be shown that the full duty has not been discharged by the police, and that personal property or security of life or limb has suffered thereby, he will not hesitate to exercise this useful power. In taking such a course he would be perfectly justified, and public opinion would support his action. The ratepayers do not desire to lose any portion of the Police grants through the rowdyism of mobs, but if the police cannot control the exuberant spirits of persons excited by military successes, the only result will be that in the places where such riots, which are increasing in number throughout the country, obtain the upper hand, the local authorities may find themselves deprived of a considerable sum of public money. I make that suggestion, and that is the only contribution I desire to make to this debate.
MR. BARTLEY: It is certainly rather amusing to some of us who have fought a good many contested elections to hear what has been going on this evening. I have very often seen a great row at meetings. Some of the friends of the hon. Member for West Islington came to my district a short time ago and made such a disturbance that nobody was allowed to speak. At one of my election meetings there there was a regular free fight at the Shoreditch Town Hall, in which several people were hurt, and the Leader of the House was not allowed to speak. That was an organised arrangement by the Radicals of that day to put a stop to our meetings, and it is ridiculous to talk about it as anything else. But now, because some of their meetings are being disturbed—amongst others these of the hon. Member for Northampton, who is accustomed to say exactly what he likes on his own platform—there is all this fuss made. Nobody justifies the breaking of windows or the damaging of property, but when loyal people in a great country are delighted at the successes of

969
their Army, and when they parade the Streets to show their joy at the relief of Ladysmith, and pass persons who are semi-traitors, I do not think it is at all unreasonable that there should be such a feeling as has been displayed. All I can say is that we are the most tolerant nation in the world. There is no other nation which would allow the treason to be talked that is talked, not merely in public meetings, but in a place it would be out of order for me to mention. I say emphatically it is a good thing that people have the spirit and are determined to exercise their right and to show to the public and the world at large that this country is practically unanimous, except for a handful of agitating scoundrels, and that a stop should be put to all this sort of thing. We are delighted at this exhibition of feeling throughout the country, and I hope it will continue. I do not wish to see any violence done, but if the other side excite the public to violence the blame is upon them, and not upon us. I believe that this agitation is got up and paid for, and that these scoundrelly papers are printed and published by the enemies of this country, and because these people cannot get a hearing in their own districts they make use of the tolerance of this House in order to say things which there is not a constituency in the country would tolerate or allow them to say in public.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we should consider the time and the occasion of expressing our opinions. I should like to know whether he considers that any single meeting which has been broken up and where disturbances have occurred was held at in inappropriate time or on an inappropriate occasion. I quite recognise that there are circumstances in which persons ought to be careful not to irritate public opinion. In cases of great public excitement, no doubt, it would be a duty not to excite unduly public feeling. But does that mean that private meetings should not be held? Surely it only means that in case of public excitement no irritating display should be made, that there should be no processions in the streets; in a word, that there should be nothing done which would force or oblige people to listen to the expression of sentiments they do not wish to hear. If the right
970
hon. Gentleman confines his reproof or censure to exhibitions of that kind he will receive some amount of sympathy, but he apparently extends his censure to any and every kind. It is impossible to evade the conclusion that there is a desire to repress every expression of opinion hostile to the policy of the Government. That desire has been indicated in this House, and it is that desire, practically, which has led to this war. If we expressed our views as to the impropriety of the policy of the Government, as to the wrong steps they were taking, as to matters they had no right whatever to take up, we were told that we were encouraging President Kruger and the enemies of the country. I do hope that in future we will not refrain from protesting against what we consider to be an evil course from the supposed fear and the mistaken idea that it will have a bad influence abroad. It does not matter whether or not it will have a bad influence abroad. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not care two straws about the bad influence abroad if the arguments we are advancing are well founded; we ought to express them in order to influence the policy of the country. The attempt to stop all expression of public opinion has been most injurious and has really led the country into rushing into this war which nobody, except a very few, desired. If everybody had expressed themselves as they should have done—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the state of things before the war began.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Very well, Sir. The First Lord of the Treasury made reference to the fact that there were a number of relatives of persons who have been killed, and he seemed to indicate that anger and indignation would be natural in these cases, and that to some extent they were responsible for these disorders. That is not the case at all. The very reverse is the case. There is no class of persons in the country more disposed to deprecate the war and to find fault with the policy which led to it than the relatives of the persons who have suffered by it. It is the natural indignation of men who consider their relatives and friends have been wrongfully and murderously killed in this war. I am satisfied that the persons who make these dis-

971
turbances are not the relatives and friends, but the persons who cause these scenes are the common roughs of the towns, and they are fully persuaded that in doing so they have the protection of the Government and the authorities. The Government newspapers give them the cue, and scarcely a word of deprecation is uttered by those papers or by the Government supporters.
MR. COGHILL: I should like to ask those hon. Members on this side of the House who have taken part in public meetings since the year 1886 how much liberty of speech they have been allowed to have at their public meetings by members of the party opposite. It does seem extraordinary that the complaint should now come from the Liberal party as to the way public meetings have been interfered with. We have been accustomed to nothing else on our side but to have our meetings interfered with, but we never came down whining to the House of Commons to move the adjournment of the House because our meetings had been disturbed. I am not a great admirer of the Liberal party, but I must say that the most scandalous incident in the history of the Liberal party which I have ever known is this, that while those who are nearest and dearest to us are fighting for their country at the front, the whole Liberal party to a man in this House rise in support of a motion for the adjournment in order to seize an opportunity of expressing their sympathies with those who are fighting against England. Such action does not redound to the credit of the Liberal party, and I do not think they will find it a paying thing in the long run. I regret the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs, because I am afraid it will be very much misinterpreted in foreign countries, and the impression will go forth that there are two opinions in regard to this war, while hitherto the impression has gone forth that we were united. I regret the hon. Gentleman has made this motion, and I am sorry to think of the direful consequences which may follow.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to say one or two words because, from an Irish point of view, this debate is extremely interesting. Most of the speeches which have been delivered
972
have been in the nature of an attack upon the First Lord of the Treasury for the attitude which he has taken up and for the doctrines he has laid down. I rise not for the purpose of delivering any attack upon the First Lord of the Treasury, but, as an Irish Member who has, from time to time, had some experience of disturbances at election times and of disturbances which follow eviction scenes, street preaching, and other matters in Ireland, to thank him sincerely and heartily for at least one of the doctrines he has laid down. From time to time in Ireland serious scenes of disorder have followed evictions. I have seen bloodshed and something approaching to very serious rioting follow evictions. I have seen property destroyed and houses attacked, but when the Irish people were charged with these things, and when a word was said upon their behalf, nobody that I ever heard of came forward with the plea in regard to these poor evicted people that human nature should be considered, and nobody laid down the doctrine that there was in these scenes of turmoil and disturbance a limit to the endurance of human nature. I think that is an excellent doctrine, and it is the best doctrine I have ever heard the First Lord of the Treasury propound. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it, and I can promise him and the House most faithfully that the next time there follows a serious disturbance after an eviction in Ireland, if houses should be wrecked, if persons should be attacked and blood should be spilled, and property destroyed, when I or any other Irish Member am upbraided, we shall come here and apply the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that "there is some limit to human endurance." Having said so much, I will refer to the speech of the last speaker, and the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington. They spoke as if these disturbances which have been complained of were solely confined to election meetings and election rows. Why, we know that election meetings and rows have nothing whatever to do with it. The hon. Member for North Islington said he had gone through many contested elections, but I think I can beat him in that, for I have been through seven or eight hotly contested elections, and I know what an election row is. As far as I am concerned, sometimes my majorities have been small

973
and sometimes large, but as far as I am concerned I should be the last person in the world to complain myself or sympathise with Liberal Members who complain of the storming of an election meeting and the taking of the platform. I think that is one of the most interesting features of electioneering. If for the future election contests were to be conducted without any excitement, and if every election meeting was to be conducted with the decorum of a Quakers' gathering, if those circumstances prevailed, as far as I am concerned, political life would have lost much of its charm; but, as far as I understand it, there is no complaint of interference with election meetings whatever. The suggestion is too absurd, and I ask the House what possible parallel or comparison can be drawn between a row at an election meeting such as that spoken of by the hon. Member for North Islington and what took place at Scarborough? There was no question of an election meeting or contest there. There was no question of a public meeting of any kind whatever; and what occurred? Why, every Member of this House and every man who loves liberty must read with regret what occurred. The business premises of Mr. Joshua Rowntree were wrecked and smashed to pieces, and the business premises of other members of his family were also wrecked and smashed to pieces. But, not satisfied with that, the riotous mob, after demolishing the business premises of this family, went to their private residence, where their wives and children were, and riddled it with stones and attacked them in a most violent and disorderly manner. That is what I take it the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the adjournment of the House complained of, and not of an election row. I take the instance with reference to an attack made upon the house of a shopkeeper in Stratford-upon-Avon. The man did not propose to hold a meeting, but his shop was attacked and not only were the windows broken, but the mob broke into the house and demolished all his stock-in-trade, broke all the furniture and all the china which it was his business to sell in his shop, and left him there practically ruined. That is what is complained of. We are told that the police are doing all they can, and we are informed that they will protect the property of these people. If these disturbances had been in Ireland
974
the police would not have been so slow. Take Dublin, or Limerick, or Waterford, where the people, or a vast majority of them, sympathise with the Transvaal, and a great majority of them believe this war is unjust. Suppose the minority, say in my constituency, proposed to hold in Cork or Waterford an indoor meeting by ticket to condemn the Transvaal Republic and support the war; and suppose that on the evening of such meeting a crowd of Nationalists, forming the overwhelming majority of the people, and being intensely excited, broke into the meeting, smashed the hall, and injured the people who participated in those gatherings, what would have happened? Why, the hall would have been entered by an armed force of police with batôns and rifles and bayonets by their side, and hundreds of men would have been made amenable to the law. But in England there is no protection whatever for the minority, and if I desired to belong to a minority I would rather belong to a minority in Ireland than in England. Reference has been made to street preaching in Cork, and the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to think, that, because these meetings were allowed, the police should not interfere in this country with such meetings as we have been discussing to-night. What comparison can you draw between the man who will insist upon preaching doctrines in the street, where he knows the people are opposed to him, and the men who call a meeting and say that nobody need come to the meeting without a ticket? There is no comparison at all between the two cases, and I say the analogy of street preaching in Cork does not compare. I will once more heartily and sincerely thank the First Lord of the Treasury for his "limit to human endurance" doctrine, and I promise him that the next time we have in Ireland a scene of violent disorder among Irish Nationalists, and he attempts to prosecute me in the matter—which is more than likely—I shall come to this House and put in the doctrine laid down by the First Lord of the Treasury, that even where property is destroyed, where blood is shed, where personal liberty is interfered with, before the law and the police are called in you have got to make every allowance for the limit which human endurance can stand.
*MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The arguments brought for ward by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the analogy he has drawn from the case of Ireland, do not dispose of the matter as comfortably as right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. I can remember a time when they were less interested in the maintenance of public order in Ireland, and when, in reference to the incidents of evictions, they themselves used this very argument about the limit of human endurance very much in the same way as the First Lord of the Treasury has used it to-day. They have used this argument and they have used it solely for the purpose of demonstrating that in respect of public disturbances this argument of human nature and endurance operates in favour of popular majorities at all times and at all places. The argument means that the persons who provoke hostile majorities have also their responsibilities; the street preacher even has his responsibilities. But to say that by no means divests or relieves the Government or the local authorities of their responsibilities, and nothing of the kind was intended by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It ought not to be necessary to say these things, but after the attempt which has been made to make political capital out of it, it is necessary to address arguments to hon. Gentlemen opposite which ought to be spoon meat to babes. The Member for the Cricklade Division says the Home Secretary has the power in his hands to assist in this matter of suppressing disorder by stopping the Government grant to local police forces in cases where they have not interfered with these riotous proceedings. That doctrine is not only bad law but it is bad policy.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I did not put it in that way. I said that such power ought to be used in exceptional cases only, and that the Home Secretary might let it be known that he has the power, and that he would use it under exceptional circumstances.
*MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The hope of the noble Lord was that a general impression would be created somehow other that the Government had responsibility in this case. If the noble Lord's words do not mean that they do
976
not mean anything. The Home Secretary has undoubtedly the power to refuse his certificate to a local police force for want of numbers or for the want of general efficiency. There is no doubt that there might be some particular case of a breach of public order which might be taken as evidence of general inefficiency, but is that the case here? Is the Home Secretary to say to every police force when at the end of the year he comes to give his certificate and the Government grant, that "upon such a day and upon such an occasion public opinion, under circumstances totally exceptional and. under conditions of peculiar excitement, boiled over just enough to produce a deplorable riot, and therefore the grant must be withheld"? There is not a municipality in this country which is not as ready to preserve law and order and liberty of speech as the hon. Gentlemen opposite who regard themselves as the only custodians of law and order. This indictment which has been brought is really an indictment of our great popular institutions under which law and order are maintained.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cordially agree with what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, and with what the Leader of the House said with regard to the responsibility which rests at a time of great local excitement upon those who call a public meeting to express something which is disagreeable to the neighbourhood. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that any one, whether a street preacher or an evicting landlord, who commits an act calculated to excite a disturbance of public order, has a great responsibility. But the point of this case lies precisely in this—that the great majority of the instances which have been referred to have not been public meetings at all. There are two classes of persons aggrieved—those who have not been connected with any meeting whatever, but who simply on account of opinions—imputed or genuine—simply on account of opinions which they are supposed to entertain, have been subjected to coercive proceedings on the part of their neighbours; and there are those who have called meetings together for the purpose of expressing their opinions in private. In the latter case only those people have been asked to attend who are

977
of like mind in political matters; but other men, holding different opinions on a purely political subject, have chosen to come and prevent the holding of the meetings. Those are the circumstances to which we have endeavoured to direct the attention of the Government. When I put the question on the Paper my object was to stimulate the activity and attention of the Government. I fully expected, from all that I had heard and from my natural conception of what the feelings and desires of the Government would be, that they would have strongly condemned these proceedings. But instead of that—though the right hon. Gentleman did, indeed, deprecate them as very improper and wrong—he devoted three quarters of his speech to an exposition of the crime committed against order by those who had suffered from the riots. Anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech would have thought that he considered the conduct of those who had called the meetings, or who were the subjects of the violence, way quite as reprehensible as that of those who disturbed the meetings. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had no business to hold meetings for the purpose of expressing opinions which were not agreeable to their neighbours. [Ministerial cries of "No."] "Agreeable" was the word which the right hon. Gentleman used. That is a limitation on freedom of opinion and speech we have never heard here before.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must be peculiarly unfortunate in my utterances thought that the version which the right hon. Gentleman gave at the beginning of his speech was perfectly accurate; but I was certainly never guilty of the observation which he has just attributed to me.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When the right hon. Gentleman was defining those who had incurred the responsibility to which he very properly pointed, he referred to them as those who entertained and wished to express opinions which were "not agreeable" to ninety-nine hundredths of the country. As to the other theory which he put forward—that on this occasion the rioters were those who were excited by the recollection of the loss of relatives and friends, but that argument has already been answered by my hon. friend behind me—you will not
978
find among the relatives of those who have fallen the least strong in condemnation of the war. The hon. Member for Islington went so far as to dub all those who held a different opinion from his own as semi-traitors.
MR. BARTLEY: I protest against that statement. I never did anything of the sort. I referred to things which were said by many persons, and I said that they were semi-traitorous. I would go further than that even in many cases.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If opinions of disapproval of the war are semi-traitorous—
MR. BARTLEY: I never said so.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are many officers and men fighting in the war who are semi-traitors. We must protest now, as we have protested all along, against mixing up two things which are entirely distinct—opinions as to the origin and necessity for the war, upon which there may be many differences, and opinions as to the obligations upon us all, when our country is engaged in this great war, to give her all the support in our power. I hold, notwithstanding what the hon. Member has said, that he is really the higher and better patriot who, not approving of the origin of the war in all respects, yet supports his country in the hour of her trial. The object which I had in putting the question on the Paper was to stimulate the action of the Government. The Home Secretary says that it lies with the local magistrates. But he is the local magistrate in the metropolis. He is responsible for Mile End, Exeter Hall, Paddington, and other places. Any one who reads the local newspapers of the districts in which the interrupted meetings have been held will see exactly what has happened. Again and again disturbances and riots have been directly instigated by the local newspapers. The case of Sheffield has been mentioned. I have in my pocket extracts which I could read to the House from local newspapers, and all to this effect:—"A private meeting is to be held by these traitorous persons. No one is to be admitted without a ticket. I wonder whether a ticket can be obtained. I think I shall buy one; and I hope others will be there." They pointed

979
out also that there were different entrances to the hall to which invited persons could gain an entrance. All that is a distinct incitement of the familiar nature indicated by the saying, "Don't nail his ears to the pump."
MR. STUART WORTLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say he is quoting from a Sheffield newspaper?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: Quoting?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, I said I would not read it, but I have it in my pocket. [An Hon. Member: Read it.] It is the Sheffield Weekly News. It says, "There will be tea at 5.30 p.m." [Laughter.] Does the hon. Gentleman who laughs never take tea at 5.30 p.m.? "And if you want to join the tea you are requested to apply early to" so and so, "but you we not be admitted unless you bring your circular. We do not want any of those wicked patriots singing 'God Save the Queen' and voting against our pious adoration of the nineteenth century St. Paul," and so on. And they quote the circular, "from which you see you are invited afterwards to spend a pleasant evening vilifying your country, insulting her flag, and glorifying her enemies. Will I be there? Well, I fancy so, if I can beg, borrow, or steal a circular, and I know some others who will accompany me. Do not forget, this afternoon at the Cutlers' Hall, at 5.30 p.m." There is a great deal more to the same effect, and they quote the instance of Edinburgh, and glory in the fact that a number of students in Edinburgh bought tickets of admission not intended for them in order to create a riot. I merely quote that as an instance of the kind of thing that is going on all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman will say, "We have no control over the newspapers; these may be very foolish, wicked, or indiscreet newspapers, but we cannot control them." No, but this was an opportunity for the Government to bring the whole weight of their authority to bear in favour of the right of free speech. The Home Secretary, as has already been remarked, was particularly moved by the question of property.
*SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, he always quoted the destruction of property. But there is the risk to life.
*SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: My remark as to the destruction of property was with reference to a particular case as to getting compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act. There was no danger to life.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Property does not matter so much, and even a broken head does not so much matter; there is something behind and below it which is a much more serious question—it is the right of free opinion and the free expression of opinion. The breaking of plate-glass windows is a disgraceful proceeding and is to be regretted, but plate-glass windows can be restored; but if you take away the right of free speech, which the people of this country have always enjoyed, you cannot so readily restore that. I regret exceedingly that the two right hon. Gentlemen have not given a more satisfactory answer to us on this question, but I am quite content, because at all events we have done our part in vindicating freedom of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman has said that his party has been deprived in some instances of that right; I can only say that I am not aware that that has occurred at any place except during the excitement of a general election, when meetings are, I believe, in this country, not in mine, broken up by both sides. I should like to be told if there is any case, except that of the organised riots at Aston, near Birmingham. I cannot express an opinion until I revive the facts, but I cannot call to mind any other case in which similar acts were committed and in which a private meeting, held by Conservatives in order to exchange their own ideas amongst themselves, was interrupted and broken in upon by members of the other side in politics.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: There is obviously among hon. Gentlemen opposite great sympathy with these rioters throughout the country. Indeed, there would appear to be a certain amount of sympathy with them on the part of the Leader of the House. Hon. Gentlemen, by their action, are letting the cat out of the bag, and are showing

981
the real spirit which animates the Conservative party, not only in the country but in this House. I think it concerns every lover of his country that there should be liberty to consider the grave issues before us at the present time. We are told we ought to hold our peace because of those who have lost relatives and friends in the war. No one can have more sympathy than I have with those who have lost relatives and friends, and I believe that feeling is common to both sides and to all parties; but we ought to try and see that we get the best return possible for this sacrifice of blood and treasure. [Interruption.] The spirit of the mob has invaded the floor of this House, and hon. Members are not true patriots who would put down discussion on this subject by clamour and would have an opportunity now which may not occur later of bringing this war to an end on honourable terms.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not at liberty to go into the question of the war on the question of disturbances in the country.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: An attempt is being made by these disturbances to drown discussion at the only time when discussion can be useful, and to substitute mob violence for reason and for humanity. [Renewed interruption.] It is absolutely useless to reason with certain hon. Members—about as useless as to reason with a mob in the street. I think the country sees the spirit which animates those who
have made the war, and who are deter mined to carry it through to the bitter end. They may have the best of the shouting—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not appear to me to be addressing himself to the question of the disturbances in the country.
MR. CRILLY: I cannot hear anything the hon. Gentleman says.
Question put.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: In the disturbance I did not hear, Sir, whether you had put the question or not, and I wish to know whether I am at liberty to address the House.
*MR. SPEAKER: I understood that the hon. Member had finished his speech. In fact, I saw the hon. Member sit down, and I put the question. It was after I had put the question that I saw him rise again.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: I sat down, Mr. Speaker, because I understood you had risen to call me to order.
*MR. SPEAKER: After I had pointed out to the hon. Member that he was out of order he remained sitting.
The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 229. (Division List No. 67.)

AYES.

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

Channing, Francis Allston

Fowler, Dr. Joseph Francis

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Clark, Dr. G. B.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Colville, John

Gold, Charles

Ambrose, Robert

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crilly, Daniel

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Crombie, John William

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Atherley-Jones, L.

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Hogan, James Francis

Barlow, John Emmott

Dewar, Arthur

Horniman, Frederick John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Donelan, Captain A.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Doogan, P. C.

Jones, David Brynmor (Swn'sea

Billson, Alfred

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Blake, Edward

Duckworth, James

Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn Sir U.

Broadhurst, Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Kilbride, Denis

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Ellis, John Edward

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Labouchere, Henry

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Burns, John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leng, Sir John

Burt, Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Ferguson, R.C. Munro-(Leith)

Lough, Thomas

Caldwell, James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macaleese, Daniel

Causton, Richard Knight

Flower, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n. C.

M'Crae, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Steadman, William Charles

M'Dermott, Patrick

Price, Robert John

Strachey, Edward

M'Ewan, William

Randell, David

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Reckitt, Harold James

Tanner, Charles Kearns

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Redmond, John E. (Waterf'd)

Tennant, Harold John

Maddison, Fred.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Ure, Alexander

G'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.

Wallace, Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wedderburn, Sir William

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

Robson, William Snowdon

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Schwann, Charles E.

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk

O'Malley, William

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Sinclair, Capt John(Forfarshire

Yoxall, James Henry

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Philips, John Wynford.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Souttar, Robinson

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice

Allsopp, Hon. George

Denny, Colonel

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Arnold, Alfred

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Arrol, Sir William

Donkin, Richard Sim

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Baird, John George Alexander

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Balcarres, Lord

Drage, Geoffrey

Keswick, William

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

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Knowles, Lees

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Eilliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Lafone, Alfred

Bartley, George C. T.

Faber, George Denison

Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Beckett, Ernest William

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Bethell, Commander

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

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

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Finch, George H.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Biddulph, Michael

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

Leighton, Stanley

Bill, Charles

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bond, Edward

Fison, Frederick William

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

Boulnois, Edmund

Forster, Henry William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lowles, John

Brassey, Albert

Fry, Lewis

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Galloway, Wm. Johnson

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land

Brown, Alexander H.

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Brymer, William Ernest

Gedge, Sydney

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Bullard, Sir Harry

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

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Butcher, John George

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Gilliat, John Saunders

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derb'shire

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool))

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

Charrington, Spencer

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Melville, Beresford Valentine.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Gull, Sir Cameron

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. John

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Monckton, Edward Philip

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hardy, Laurence

Monk, Charles James

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow.

Heath, James

Morgan, Hn Fred.(Monm'shire

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Muntz, Philip A.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Howard, Joseph

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

Currie, Sir Donald

Howell, William Tudor

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Curzon, Viscount

Hozier, Hn James Henry Cecil

Myers, William Henry

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

984

985

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Russell, Gen F. S. (Cheltenham

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

Rutherford, John

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlingt'n

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Penn, John

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Seely, Charles Hilton

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Pierpoint, Robert

Seton-Karr, Henry

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Welby, Sir C. G. E (Notts.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

Purvis, Robert

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Quitter, Sir Cuthbert

Spencer, Ernest

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset)

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

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

Richards, Henry Charles

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wyndham, George

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Strauss, Arthur

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

TELLLERS FOR THE NOES—

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Round, James

Thornton, Percy M.

DOGS REGULATION.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. Long,: I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to dogs. The muzzling order having done its duty there is now room for a more moderate measure, and local authorities are anxious to get certain powers with regard to the control of dogs. In the Bill introduced last year there were some provisions not so unreasonable I think as some persons represented them to be, but they evoked a great deal of opposition, and this year we are content to submit less extensive proposals. There are regulations relating to collars in the Bill which have been inserted at the instance of urban authorities, and the County Councils are given the option of imposing similar regulations in their own districts. The Bill will also clear up certain doubts as to the law, and will enable local authorities to make by-laws with a view to the prevention of sheep-worrying.
DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the abolition of the muzzling order is universal throughout the United Kingdom?
*MR. LONG: The Bill has nothing to do with the abolition of the muzzling order which is imposed by the central authority. The new powers are to be conferred solely on the local authority.
MR. BROADHURST: Is the Bill to be limited to dogs?
Bill to amend the Law relating to Dogs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

DOGS REGULATION BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Dogs," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
NAVAL RESERVE (MOBILISATION).
Bill to amend the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act,1859, in relation to calling out the Volunteers for actual service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macartney, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Attorney General.
NAVAL RESERVE (MOBILISATION) BILL.
"To amend the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act, 1859, in relation to calling out the Volunteers for actual service," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
WAR LOAN BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading Read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: A great deal of surprise was felt

  987
  when it was found that this Bill had passed through Committee without a single word being said about it or without a single division being taken upon it. On the Second Reading of the Bill I, at some length, pointed out the reasons why I could not approve of it; and at this stage I desire to renew the protest which I then made against it. It is not necessary to justify the position the Irish Members have taken up on this Bill, to go at any length at all into the policy which has brought about the present war which many of us consider to be so iniquitous, so unnecessary, and so absolutely unjust. Apart altogether from the policy of the war, to provide the expenses of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks us for this money, we may object to this loan because we consider it is quite unfair to saddle Ireland in any way whatever with any of the extraordinary charges for the war. I have already pointed out that the financial condition of Ireland is altogether peculiar, and that circumstances exist in connection with the taxation of Ireland which, in the opinion of the Irish people, would justify a very exceptional treatment of Ireland in all Imperial taxation of this kind. Of course this War Loan Bill will pass, and the Irish people will not feel, any more than the people of this country, the full effects of what is being done for some years to come. But sooner or later these thirty millions will have to be repaid, and they will be repaid by means of taxation levied upon Ireland, and which will fall more heavily upon the Irish people than upon the people of this country. There is one aspect of the Irish view of the case to which I wish to refer, because it came to the front at question time to-day. I asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he could grant a Return showing how much had been spent in Ireland in the last year upon warlike stores and supplies, and how much had been spent in England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give me the Return on the ground that its preparation would occupy a great deal of time, and that the War Office authorities are very busy at the present moment. No doubt that is a reason of a sort why the Return should not be given, but, from the Irish point of view, it is a most unsatisfactory reason. No doubt the War Office is busily engaged just now, but if we had our way there would be more time on their hands. Nevertheless, no matter
  988
  how the War Office may be engaged, I say when we consider the large sums of money that are being spent for the purposes of War, we in Ireland are entitled to information which will let us see, and our people know, how much of that money, directly or indirectly, is spent for the benefit of Irish trade and the Irish working people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might, in my opinion, greatly facilitate the passage of this Bill, which must pass, in spite of our opposition to it, if he would be good enough to say to us that he would use his influence with the War Office, or whatever the proper authority may be, to have a Return prepared, so that the Irish people and the public at large may be able to see at a glance, and to understand what proportion of these vast sums for war supplies is being spent among the people of Ireland, and what proportion amongst the people of the United Kingdom. This day week a debate will take place in the House upon the whole condition of Irish taxation and the findings of the Royal Commission which inquired into the relative taxation of Great Britain and Ireland; and I cannot myself see that it will be possible in that debate to present in the fullest manner the Irish aspect of the case, unless we are in a position to show from information which the Government Departments can alone give us how much of this taxation is spent upon the Irish working people, and how much upon the working people of Scotland and England. This may not seem to be an important matter, but how is it that our constituents urge us to offer such strenuous objections to such measures as this Bill, which raises such an enormous amount of money? There are several reasons. First, because they hold that the war is unnecessary and unjust; second, because they believe that the present taxation of Ireland is too great, and that they should not be burdened with fresh taxation; and third, and not altogether least, because when they read in the newspapers of the millions and millions of money being voted for the purposes of war, they find hardly a sixpence is ever spent for the benefit of Irish workers and Irish trade. No doubt this war is popular enough in certain quarters in England. War is always popular because the people will not feel the full weight of the burden until the money was to be raised by direct or indirect taxation. The war is popular to

  989
  certain extent, because the money will be largely distributed amongst the great Army and Navy Departments of this country, and hundreds of thousands of British workmen will receive this money back in the shape of wages for work done in the dockyards and factories of England. We have not a single dockyard in Ireland worth talking about, and the Government never even build as much as a torpedo boat in Ireland. I am not going to discuss the Navy Estimates now, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that what I say is perfectly true, and although he may laugh I can assure him that the people in Ireland, when they see these repeated applications for money, almost the first thing they say is, "How much of this money is to be spent in Ireland? Hardly anything." There are one or two comparatively small Army Clothing Factories in Ireland, but they get very little work. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent populous Irish constituencies know that there are plenty of strong young men and young women who would make ideal factory hands, and we find them with absolutely no work to do.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is speaking to a general question, which is rather remote from the War Loan Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will endeavour, Sir, as far as I can, to keep to the strict letter of your ruling. I must say I was endeavouring—rather fairly, I thought—to point out why it is that I was obliged to object to large sums of money being raised for warlike purposes. Of course, if I am out of order I will not continue. I do not suppose that a single £1 out of the 30 millions will ever find its way into the pockets of the Irish wage-earners, and under these circumstances it is not unreasonable that we should come here and offer our strongest protest against this enormous loan. Independently of this loan the Irish people have to bear increased taxation of a very unfair kind, and the taxes on commodities fall heavier on the people of Ireland, relatively speaking, than on the people of this country. This loan of 30 millions would be sufficient to set the people of Ireland, Scotland, and England in a position of commercial and industrial prosperity, and industries which are flagging for a want of a little encouragement would forge ahead if they were only
  990
  subsidised a little. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade laughs at industries being subsidised. We know that in the West Indies the Government give large sums of money to assist the sugar industry.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Making a speech in Parliament is something like riding a bicycle—a very small thing will put you off your balance; and if the right hon. Gentleman interrupts me I cannot help answering his interruption. I say that this money might be expended to much greater advantage than in the prosecution of the war. We are told that up to the 31st of this month the war will have cost twenty-three millions. Well, at the end of the month there can be little doubt that the predominance of the power of the British Empire will be pretty well established in South Africa. I do not say that you will be at Pretoria, but so far it has been quite established that these two small Republics in the end will have to submit to your yoke with the power pitted against them. Why not accept the friendly offices of the President of the United States, and bring about a peace honourable to the combatants on both sides, and which will secure everything desired by British subjects in the Transvaal—a peace which will conduce to good feeling and happy relations in the future between the Dutch and British populations? Why should not such a peace be concluded now? You will be enabled to enforce your demands from Bloemfontein as effectively as from Pretoria. What is the use of trampling these small Republics out of existence altogether. What is the use of continuing this war so as to make the people of the world and the Dutch race in Africa think that it is to be a war of extermination? Why not ask if these people are satisfied with the terms you are prepared to give? It is quite possible, if you did ask them, especially through the medium of a friendly Power like America, that it would satisfy them if you safeguarded your interests for the future, and granted a peaceful settlement which would not altogether outrage the sense of independence and bravery which the people of South Africa had shown. We have heard threats that Mr. Kruger is to be held responsible for this, that, and the

  991
  other. I suppose that means that you will not be satisfied until Mr. and Mrs. Kruger are shipped off to St. Helena. I ask the Colonial Secretary, who ought to be satisfied at the present time with the success of his schemes and plans, if terms of peace could not be arranged now, by the friendly action of a friendly Power. If that were done what would be the first result? I believe that the liberty loving countries of the world would say that England had acted well, and that the Dutch people in South Africa would become reconciled.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the consequences of the peace.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have not the slightest intention, Mr. Speaker, of getting outside your ruling. One result which peace would have—and in this I believe I am quite in order—would be that this loan of thirty millions would be absolutely unnecessary, and the country would be saved thirty millions in hard cash and in taxes, and instead of devoting that enormous sum to a war of extermination, bloodshed and misery, it might be devoted to some other national purpose which would be for the benefit and general utility of the community at large. It does seem to me that at this stage of the war it is uncalled for, it is unnecessary, it is un states man like for the Government to come forward and ask for thirty millions more in order to prosecute the war. Do you expect that a continuance of the war is going to cost thirty millions more? How is it going to be spent? How is it going to be done? The whole thing seems to me so outrageous, so unjust, and so unnecessary, that I cannot, at this stage, refrain from opposing this loan, in the interests of the great mass of the people of this country who agree with me. But I oppose it principally in behalf of my constituents, because it is to be applied in an unjust war, because we are already over-taxed, and from the very matter of fact and plain material point of view that, whereas the working people in Great Britain are getting a large part of this great sum back in the shape of wages, we in Ireland will not get a single £1. I conclude by asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite seriously, if he could consider whether it be possible between now and
  992
  this day week, when we have our set debate on the financial relations of Ireland, to see that some information is given us to show what proportion of this money is to be spent in Ireland for warlike stores and supplies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that that is unnecessary. It is necessary, and for this reason; we are told that it may be possible we are overtaxed to a small extent, but that we get compensations in other directions.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot in this debate ask for information for the purposes of another debate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I thought it would be more convenient to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman now than to put it on the Paper.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I could not answer the question in any case, as it relates to a matter which is not in my Department. It should be addressed to the representative of the War Department.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I did ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to get the information supplied, because unless this information is given our debate cannot be brought to a satisfactory or useful conclusion.
  MR. LOUGH: I do not wish to associate myself with the strong protest against this Bill which has come from the Irish bench. I venture to say that this is the only part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's war proposals that I could approve of. I think the Budget is a very onerous one, and that if we have to find this additional money we could not do it better than by way of loan. But there are two faults I have to find with the Bill. One of them is its name. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have taken a more judicious name than "War Loan Bill" and "War Stock Bill." I like to see this House exercise its influence in favour of peace. I know that wars must come sometimes, but we should try to carry out our arrangements in a way that would not popularise war. The loan might have been called "The South African Loan Bill" or "The Supply Loan

  993
  Bill." It would have gone equally well, and in the course of time the war, and all that led to the war, would have been forgotten. Another fault I have with the Bill is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not told us how the loan will be redeemed. If he would throw further light on that subject he would make his scheme more perfect than at the present moment, and make it more acceptable to the country. Another point is, why is this Bill for thirty-five millions, and yet only thirty millions are to be issued? I see a rumour in the papers that the other five millions may be issued soon. If the right hon. Gentleman has any information to give on these points we shall be glad to hear it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that up to Saturday last the number of applicants for the loan was eighteen thousand. I do not think that a very large number. If the loan was distributed to the amount of £500 to each applicant it would require 60,000 applicants to take up the entire loan. I do not desire to offer any opposition to the Bill, for on the whole it is the best way the finances of the war could be managed.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he felt it his bounden duty to associate himself with the hon. Member for East Clare in making a protest against the war. He wanted to know what amount of money Ireland would be compelled to contribute to it. Their great objection was that they would have to pay and receive nothing in return. The war had been from the beginning unjust, and in consequence they felt unnecessary pressure was going to be placed on the shoulders of the Irish people, who were now the working classes, seeing that the landlords had been removed from all taxation. Irish
  Members were there to insist that in Ireland taxation should not be increased for Imperial purposes, seeing that the taxation of Ireland already far exceeded the burden she could bear. Subject to the correction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they should have to contribute roughly £2,000,000 of this £30,000,000.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss under this Bill the comparative taxation of Ireland and other parts of the United kingdom.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he simply wanted to ask a question arising out of the Bill—what amount of that £30,000,000 they in Ireland were to be required to contribute? But if that was not a fair question, he would bow to the Speaker's ruling. So far as he could see, there was no difference between paying direct taxation and paying the interest on a loan of this description. It was the duty of the Irish Members to raise their voices in protesting against it. Ireland had received no benefit either directly or indirectly, and he should take every opportunity of protesting a loan for the purposes of prolonging a war which the Irish regarded as unjust and inhuman. The Government might prolong the war and take away the independence of the Boers if they chose, but if they did they would find in years to come there would be stronger opposition to British rule in the Transvaal than ever there was in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 23. (Division List No. 68).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Billson, Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colville, John

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Bond, Edward

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Curzon, Viscount

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

  Caldwell, James

  Dewar, Arthur

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

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

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Duckworth, James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lowles, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Round, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Rutherford, John

  Finch, George H.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Crae, George

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Smith, James P. (Lanarksh.)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, James

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Steadman, William Charles

  Garfit, William

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W.F.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Monk, Charles James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Ure, Alexander

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Heath, James

  Myers, William Henry

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Penn, John

  Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Keswick, William

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Knowles, Lees

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lafone Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorksh.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham, George

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm Edw. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. White

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crilly, Daniel

  MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Queen'sC

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. BUCHANANsaid his object in submitting the Instruction standing on the Paper in his name was to get separate Bills for England and Scotland as was the case in previous censuses. He understood from what the President of the Local Government Board told him recently that the proposal to include both countries in one Bill was to save time, while the Lord Advocate, speaking subse-
996
quently in the debate, threw over the President of the Local Government Board, and said he was not at all going to rely on the question of saving time, and it was because of the observations made by the hon. and learned member on that occasion that he now brought forward this motion with the view of inducing the Government to pass separate Acts for Scotland and England. The Lord Advocate the other day asserted that this was not a retrograde, but a forward movement as far as legislation was concerned, and that the Government considered it the better method of procedure.

997
He entirely joined issue with the Lord Advocate with respect to that contention. The hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that, wherever possible, legislation should be uniform for the three kingdoms. He perfectly agreed that was the case where Parliament was legislating on new subjects, as for instance in connection with commercial legislation, but in the matter of the census, they were not legislating on a new subject. During the whole century every ten years when there had been a census separate Acts had been passed for England, Scotland, and Ireland. As he read the Bill now before the House it did not in any way assimilate the census of Scotland to that of England, and one of the objections to this method of legislation was that it would require a very practised lawyer to understand the full effect of the Bill.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Dr. Tanner, Cork County, Mid). House counted, and, forty Members being found present,
MR. BUCHANAN(continuing) said he did not see the advantage to be gained from the form of legislation that was being adopted here. The Lord Advocate had said this was the right method of legislation for Scotland, and that the Act could be made to apply to this country by an interpretation clause. He entirely contested that principle. In Scotland they had been long-suffering during the past few years with respect to this method of legislation. Two years ago the Government introduced the Teachers' Pension Bill for England, and a clause was introduced to make it apply to Scotland. Down to that time the educational legislation for Scotland
had been distinct from that of England. If it was intended to have separate census for England and Scotland the proper method to carry that out would be to have separate Acts in England and Scotland. He thought that the tendency of the present Bill was to complicate and obscure Scotch legislation and make it more difficult to understand.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one extending to England and the other extending to Scotland."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I hope I may be able to dispel the doubts of the hon. Gentleman. I distinctly said on the Second Reading of the Bill that this was included at the request of the Scotch Office, and in order to save time, as it was feared that there might not be much opportunity for legislation this session. The hon. Member complains of the Bill because he says it is beyond the ordinary intelligence of the people who, generally speaking, have to deal with it. To the person of ordinary intelligence "Great Britain" includes Scotland. All the provisions relating to Scotland appear in the different clauses until you come to the particular clause which makes it directly apply to Scotland, and provides machinery for that purpose under the Bill as it stands, the coming census for Scotland will be as full and complete as any former census.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 69.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Maddison, Fred.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duckworth, James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barlow, John Emmott

Fenwick, Charles

O'Malley, William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Power, Patrick Joseph

Billson, Alfred

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Broadhurst, Henry

Gurdon Sir William Brampton

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Burns, John

Hogan, James Francis

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Burt, Thomas

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Sinclair, Capt J. (Forfarshire)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Souttar, Robinson

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Steadman, William Charles

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Crae, George

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dewar, Arthur

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ure, Alexander

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Caldwell.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Garfit, William

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Allsopp, Hon. George

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Pierpoint, Robert

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Gilliat, John Saunders

Pilkington, Rich.(Lancs Newt'n

Arnold, Alfred

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Arrol, Sir William

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb.

Pusvis, Robert

Bartley, George C. T.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Beckett, Ernest William

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Heath, James

Richards, Henry Charles

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Helder, Augustus

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. White

Bond, Edward

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Howell, William Tudor

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Round, James

Butcher, John George

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Keswick, William

Rutherford, John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lafone, Alfred

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorksh.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Charrington, Spencer

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Lowe, Francis William

Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lowles, John

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Curzon, Viscount

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverp'l)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Donkin, Richard Sim

M'Killop, James

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-under-L.

Doxford, Sir W. Theodore

Monckton, Edward Philip

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Monk, Charles James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Wortley, Rt Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Muntz, Philip A.

Wyndham, George

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fison, Frederick William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Galloway, William Johnson

Penn, John

Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
*THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan is not in order. It is beyond the scope of the Bill.
SIR F. S. POWELL: That applies to the whole of my Amendments.
MR. BUCHANANsaid he understood from the President of the Local Government Board that, although the Bill as it
1000
stood only provided for one census, there would be a separate census for England and Scotland. That being so he was unable to see why the Committee should not accept the Amendment he proposed. He merely desired to make that point clear.
MR. CALDWELLpointed out that Great Britain included Ireland, and if only one census was to be taken Ireland ought to come within the scope of the Bill. But in the case of Ireland there was a separate Bill. The difference in the present case was that the census in England would be taken under one Local Government Board, and that of Scotland under another. Under the circumstances he deprecated any alteration in

1001
the procedure of the past when separate Bills were introduced for England and Scotland.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would give an assurance that under the Bill the Government would not alter the method that was previously adopted for taking the census in Scotland.
MR. CHAPLIN: Certainly the most unqualified assurance in the world.
Clause 1:—
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSmoved that the census should be taken on Saturday, 30th March, and not on Sunday, 31st March, as provided in the Bill. He drew attention to the fact that when he raised this point on a previous occasion, the President of the Local Government Board stated that Sunday was taken because it was the most convenient date to take the census, as on that day it was most likely the greater number of people would be at home. The change of date would not cause any inconvenience. His Amendment was based on the ground of sentiment, which was deeply implanted in the people. There were many people, especially in the part of the country with which he was acquainted, who thought it was inappropriate to fill up these returns upon the Sunday.
Amendment proposed—
"On page 1, line 7, to leave out 'Sunday.' and insert 'Saturday.' "—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
MR. CHAPLIN: The first Sunday in April, 1901, happens to be Easter Sunday, and that being so it might possibly be that a great number of people might be away from home. But with regard to the Sunday, that date was chosen because the assumption was, taking the majority of people in Great Britain, it would be found that the one day on which they were at home was Sunday. The papers could be filled up on the Saturday or the Monday. Sunday has always been the day on which the census is taken, and I cannot see that any reason has been advanced for altering it.
MR. LOWLESappealed to the President of the
1002
Local Government Board to alter the day from Sunday to Thursday. The census was taken on the number of people sleeping in the house on a certain night, and the practice of the week-end out of town was greatly on the increase. He made the request on behalf of a large body of men living in the central districts of London who were in the habit of spending the week-end away from home.
MR. CHAPLIN: I can quite understand that the appeal made by my hon. friend might have some weight at certain times of the year. I have very little doubt that there is a great deal of force in his argument, but I can hardly believe that it has much weight in the month of March. The Committee must remember that the census is not only for central London. It is for the whole of Great Britain, and I have heard nothing to lead me to change my opinion as to the appropriateness of the date in the Bill.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid the difficulty to which he had drawn attention would be removed if instructions were given in the papers. The papers should not be collected earlier than mid-day on the Monday, so that those who did not care to fill up the papers on Sunday could do so on the Monday.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid it was perfectly obvious that the paper could not be filled up on the Sunday, because it would not be a true account of the people who slept in the house on the Sunday night. It would have to be filled up on Monday morning, in any case.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he could not pledge himself to the particular hour at which the papers should be collected, but he would take care that the papers should be collected at such a time as would give the people an opportunity of filling them up on the Monday morning.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:—
LORD HUGH CECIL, in moving to insert words providing for the

1003
taking returns of the religious professions of the people, said: I think this is a perfectly reasonable matter to bring before the House. I believe that in almost every other country a religious census is taken, and in Ireland, for some reason which I have never understood, a different custom prevails there than in England, for a religious census is actually taken in Ireland. Although I do not intend to press the matter to a division, I think the subject is one which should be brought before the Committee. We are told sometimes, and may be told to-night, that a religious census is an inquisitorial proceeding. I would point out that a religious census is taken in Ireland, and why should it be regarded as inquisitorial in England? Sometimes we are told that there are Nonconformists who have had the greatest possible dislike to letting it be known what their religious belief is. That seems to me to be a very striking circumstance. I understand that all communications made to enumerators are confidential, and I can hardly conceive that there are any Nonconformists who would not desire to call themselves such to any enumerator, and to show in an un mistakeable form what their religious belief was. We are told that a Nonconformist does not like to incur the social penalties which would fall upon him by declaring his religious belief. He has a motive for not desiring to declare his religious belief, and this motive, singularly enough, does not allow him to declare his religious belief in any other way. If it did, there would be no reason why he should not declare it to an enumerator. Why does this singular motive operate against enumerators, and why is this the one occasion on which he refuses to declare his belief? I am a bit sceptical about this, and I am inclined to believe that the majority of Nonconformists would have no reluctance at all to state their religious belief. In itself the matter is not ecclesiastical, but the subject has been given a peculiar interest, not by Churchmen, but by those who advocate disestablishment. It has been said that the Church should be disestablished because it no longer represents a majority of the people of this country. This has been said in England, and I believe it has also been said in Scotland. Of course, we should not admit that disestablishment was just, but we have said that the Church of England contains a great majority of the people of England
1004
and Wales, and that it is an increasing majority. That, I know, is sometimes disputed; but, if my statement is disputed, the proper way of settling the question is to have a religious census, and therefore we consider it our duty to demand a religious census as a reply to that argument. Of course, if there is any great objection to this Amendment I shall not press it, because disestablishment is so unlikely to arise within the next ten years that it is unnecessary to produce arguments against it. Having regard to the weakness of disestablishment, and to the fact that it is undesirable to do anything which may be deemed offensive to any part of the country, I shall not press the Amendment to a division. I only move it to show that it is not the Church of England which shrinks from this, but it is the Liberationists who shrink from the ordeal, and I wish all the world may know that we are prepared to go to the test and that our opponents are not.
MR. BUCHANAN: The noble Lord moves an Amendment, and when he introduces it he says he is not going to press it to a division. It is, therefore, a bogus Amendment, and the noble Lord knows it.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I do not press it, having regard to the feelings of my opponents.
MR. BUCHANAN: What kind of feelings? I say this motion is a reflection upon that charity which ought to be dear to the noble Lord. He has pictured before this House an imaginary Nonconformist who declined to own to the census enumerator what his religious belief was, because it might bring him down a little in society.
LORD HUGH CECIL: No, no. The whole point of my observation was to throw ridicule on that argument.
MR. BUCHANAN: Why do you take up an imaginary Nonconformist who holds a religious belief different from your own, and then exhibit him to ridicule?
LORD HUGH CECIL: I did not do so.
MR. BUCHANAN: Such an accusation is quite unworthy of the noble Lord.
LORD HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member has failed to understand the whole course of my argument.
MR. BUCHANAN: Why do you create this imaginary person and trot him out on an imaginary Amendment which you have not the courage to press to a division? The noble Lord is making use of this occasion to throw reflections, and most unworthy reflections, upon a large proportion of the people of this country, and he is doing so in the narrowest spirit. I have no sympathy whatever with these imaginary persons who loom so largely in the narrow imagination of the noble Lord, who decline to own when it is necessary to own their religious convictions. What right has the noble Lord or any individual to ask me my religious belief?
LORD HUGH CECIL: What right have you to ask the people of Ireland?
MR. BUCHANAN: At present we are discussing the Bill before us, and I am perfectly ready to discuss the Irish Bill when it arises. The noble Lord has come here suggesting an Amendment, but not daring to move it.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I have moved it.
MR. BUCHANAN: But the noble Lord says he is not going to press it to a division, and he followed that statement with a speech in which he held up to ridicule some persons in whom he did not believe. He made some observations upon Disestablishment which I thought were hardly germane to the Bill we are now discussing. I think that it is hardly worthy of the noble Lord or the Church to which he belongs to take an opportunity under a Bill of this kind to make a covert and unworthy attack upon a large number of his fellow subjects in this country.
MR. CHAPLIN: I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, and I think he expressed his views very temperately. I fail to see what he has said to call forth the heated remarks of the hon. Member
1006
who has just sat down. The noble Lord has stated very distinctly that he does not intend to press this Amendment to a division, and he has no object further than that of having his proposal discussed. If I might make a suggestion it would be that the Committee should accept what the noble Lord has said, and that he should be allowed to withdraw the Amendment. The fact that this proposal has called forth such heat is the best practical argument against inserting religious questions in the census.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must say that I agree what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I do not know whether the noble Lord is now entirely satisfied with his incursion in this debate. If he is I should think he stands alone in that satisfaction. I do not know whether he is satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The noble Lord speaks for the Church of England.
LORD HUGH CECIL: No, I am speaking for myself.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The noble Lord was advancing arguments in favour of the Church of England as a religious establishment, and refuting arguments which he put into the minds of hon. Members opposite. He has now disclaimed any right to speak for the Church of England. The question of disestablishment is not a religious question, and it is not even an ecclesiastical question, but it is a political question. It is a question in which the members of the Church of England are as free to vote for or against as any Member of this House. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that this Amendment has perhaps imported more heat than its importance deserves.
*MR. TALBOT: said that twenty years ago he had the honour of supporting the First Lord of the Treasury, who was then a private Member of the House, and who then took the same view. Looked at from an abstract point of view, there was nothing to be said against a religious census at that time, and he still adhered to that position. His ideas of logic were, perhaps, old-fashioned, but he could not

1007
understand why they should not have a religious census in England when such a census was taken in Ireland, not a country certainly of weak religious feeling, whilst even their self-governing colonies had a religious census, and they could not be called retrograde communities. He thought that whatever was done in the colonies in this matter might at least be done in Great Britain. If we might not speak of an imaginary Nonconformist, then there must be a substantial one. The Church of England claimed that they had a majority of the people in their Church, and they did not object to a religious census. He could not understand what was the reason why Nonconformists did not like to have a religious census. If it was not a social reason, what was it? Were they afraid of the facts? He thought he was almost justified in saying that the British Isles were the only civilised country in which there was not a religious census.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: And in which there is an Established Church.
*MR. TALBOT: Where there was an Established Church was it a wrong thing for that Church to ask for an enumeration of the persons who belonged to it?
MR. WILLIAM JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that a religious census is obtained in Ireland and the colonies, but he forgot to mention the important fact that in Ireland and the colonies there exists no Established Church. I desire to point out that Nonconformists are not afraid of the facts, but what they contend is that the real facts cannot be obtained by a religious census. I am going to challenge the noble Lord as to the facts, and I ask him, would he be willing to take a census of the bonâ fide members or communicants of the Church of England and Nonconformist bodies? Will he take the Church year-books and compare their number with that of the communicants and members in the Free Churches of England and Wales? That would be a fairer and a more straightforward test of the numerical strength of church and chapel than the one proposed. I heard the noble Lord cast a reflection upon Nonconformists regarding Disestablishment, but
1008
the Nonconformists do not base their objection to the Establishment upon its numerical strength. Their objection is that the relation of the State to the Church has vulgarised and materialised the Church, and has not given it the power to purify and ennoble the State. If the noble Lord opposite would take a census of the communicants and members, the Free Churches would not be afraid of that. But what has the Church of England hitherto done? Various Churchmen have taken a religious census here and there, and paraded the figures to the disadvantage of Nonconformists. In this census they have included prisoners in gaols, a majority of the inmates of workhouses, demoralised paupers and degenerates, who neither properly belonged to church nor chapel, and yet they were returned as Churchmen. Such a census will be opposed by every fair-minded Gentleman in this House, because it is a hollow thing and a sham.
*MR. RICHARDS: I am perhaps one of the few Members of this House who steadily read Nonconformist literature and articles, and I may inform the hon. Member who has just spoken that since 1851 our Nonconformist fellow citizens have, from time to time, endeavoured to take what they call a religious census. The census taken in 1851 by Mr. Horace Mann was an attempt to show what is the accommodation in mission rooms not connected with the Established Church. I have not a word to say against any efforts my hon. friend takes in that direction, but it is very hard, when we want to know the number of members in the Church of England, that we cannot have a religious census. I challenge hon. Members opposite to deny that in all the self-governing colonies a religious census is taken every five or ten years without the slightest objection. The remarks of the last speaker are altogether beside the question. He knows as well as I do that in Scotland there is a position quite different from that of communicant—the position of whether a man is an adherent of the Established, the Free, or the United Presbyterian Church. The proposition put forward to-night that none but communicants should be reckoned is a most extraordinary one. I have often heard it put forward by those who share my views, but never before

1009
from the other side of the House. What we have been told in the organs of the Liberation Society is the provision the Free Churches of England make for the worshipping public, and year by year they have printed in their handbooks not the number of communicants, not the number of attendants, but the number of places they provide. They appeal to that as a proof that the Established Church is not meeting the wants of the country. In 1850 they took the first step in endeavouring to get a census of those attending church and chapel. We have from time to time been favoured with what is called a religions census in large towns of the number of persons present at the morning and evening services in the Established Church, and in what are called the Free Churches. I would not vote for any proposition which would cast any slur upon my Nonconformist friends, some of whom are my best supporters. But if my noble friend goes to a division I am quite prepared to tell with him. We want it to go forth to the country that now there is an opportunity of knowing in England and Wales what we know in Ireland—the religious aspect of the country. Instead of having these bogus censuses provided by amateur reporters there is now an opportunity, if the President of the Local Government Board can see his way to do this, of knowing once and for all whether the Church of England is in a minority in this country.
MR. CHAPLIN: I have already made one appeal to the Committee, and I must apologise for appealing again. Do let me remind hon. Members of what is the position. An Amendment has been moved in regard to which it is stated by the mover that it is not proposed to take a division. That Amendment has led to a somewhat heated discussion, and I would suggest that it should now be withdrawn, in order that we may proceed with business. I do again suggest that the discussion in which we are now engaged, although keenly interesting to some Members, is really a waste of time. Therefore I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn and business proceeded with.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: While I have the greatest sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, and believe that he wishes to proceed with business, we are
1010
in the position that the noble Lord has commenced what I may call a sham fight, and a good many arguments have been put forward which are entirely unsound, and an opportunity should be allowed for those arguments to be answered. A great deal has been said about the different treatment meted out to Ireland; the colonies have also been referred to; and we have been urged to consent to a census in order that the facts might be laid before the country. No one wants anything but the facts, but we know, as a matter of fact, that while there is a political question pending you cannot have the facts brought out in a census of religious beliefs ["Why not?"] The position of the Church of England and of the Church of Scotland is not the position of other churches in those countries. Before you can obtain an impartial census of the people belonging to the different churches and the different beliefs you must put those churches and beliefs on an equal and the same footing. Facts are worth nothing unless that preliminary step is taken. I, therefore, deprecate this discussion, which is calculated only to mislead public opinion.
MR. SOUTTAR: I wish to express my astonishment at what I may call the noble Lord's want of knowledge of the heart of the Nonconformist. There is no such Nonconformist in the world as the one conjured up by the mover of this Amendment. No Nonconformist in the concrete is ashamed of his convictions, or afraid to put them on a census paper. Why, then, do they object to the taking of a religious census? Because such a census would be entirely fallacious. I have been engaged for a good many years in working amongst poor people, and I know of a certainty that no matter how poor a man is, and no matter how bad a man may be, he is always, speaking generally, a local Churchman. Men who have betrayed every friend who ever trusted in them, men who are drunk every day of their lives—the worse they are the more loyal to the Church. I have visited houses with a clergyman of the Church of England, and we have said to a man, "You go to chapel, I suppose?" "No, I was never in a chapel in my life." "Were you ever in a church?" I have asked. "Well, no, I cannot say that I was," has been the reply. But on a

1011
census paper such a man would put himself down as a Churchman. Every tramp in a thieves' kitchen, every convict in the prisons, would write himself down as a Churchman, and the result is that a census return would be absolutely fallacious and entirely unfair to Nonconformists.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is quite true the noble Lord does not propose to go to a division, and that is the only reason I intervene in this debate. The only object of such a debate is to enable the noble Lord and his friends to say, "We offered to have a religious census, but you refused." It is not really intended that this Amendment should be carried. ["Yes."] Very well, in that case we have got to contest it, and the matter should be fully and fairly discussed. A proposition similar to this was made when the last Census Bill was before the House, but it was not carried. The object then was merely that which I have stated. No one knows better than the noble Lord himself that such a test would be perfectly fallacious. But there is a test. Take London, for instance. It is a well-known fact that if every church and chapel was crowded every Sunday there would not be one-fifth of the population in attendance. If the right hon. Gentleman likes I will say that one-half of the people of London do not attend the churches. What becomes of the other half? As far as that half are concerned, from the cradle to the grave they never go inside a church or chapel. They are not Churchmen or religious people at all. But if there was a census they would return themselves possibly as Nonconformists, but more probably as Churchmen. Would that be a fair test? I ask any real and sincere Churchman, such as we all recognise the noble Lord to be, would he regard a person who had never been inside a church, or who for ten years had not attended when he might have done, as a Churchman? Would it be an honest return on the part of that man? In Nonconformist churches we have a test. If a person does not attend for a certain space of time, unless there is some valid reason for his absence, he is struck off the rolls and is no longer regarded as a member of that church. That is a real test, and one which can be applied to any community. If you have a census at all you want an
1012
honest census. Look at the census returns for prisons. Take Wales. A vast majority of the persons in prisons in Wales, which is a Nonconformist country, return themselves as Churchmen. I am not going to suggest that this is because Churchmen are the scum of the population in Wales. What I suggest is that these people are people of no religion at all. The residue—I will not say the residuum—of the population will always label themselves of the religion of the bulk of the population—the State religion. The same thing applies to workhouses, and, I believe, to lunatic asylums. Would the noble Lord say that because these returns show a larger proportion of Churchmen that therefore the majority of lunatics are Churchmen, or the majority of Churchmen are lunatics? I venture to say that the object of the Amendment is really not worthy of the noble Lord. He wants an honest return; he really wants to know officially what is the real strength of Nonconformity and of the Church in this country, and if there was a means of arriving at it I quite agree with him it would be exceedingly desirable to get it. In the Disestablishment controversy we have had statistics given on either side, but there has been no means of testing them. The time will come when the Disestablishment issue will again be a vital one, as when this war craze has passed away the people of the country will return to deeper issues. It is, therefore, important to have reliable figures. The only way of getting them would be to get the denominations to return a register of their own members, and those figures could be tested. Churchmen give us an aggregate number, but when we ask for the figures for any single parish they decline to give them. That is the real test. If the noble lord can suggest any means of arriving at the facts, by which the return should be a fair, honest and reliable one, I will heartily support it, and I believe the bulk of Nonconformists would do the same.
LORD HUGH CECIL(who was indistinctly heard): was understood to say that he did not intend to reflect injuriously upon the religious convictions of anybody. He had a sincere respect for all religious people. A religious census was not asked for for the purpose of estimating the religious force of the various denominations in the country. Such statistics would neces-

1013
sarily be inaccurate and misleading. The census was desired for the specific purpose of meeting the numerical argument against the Establishment. This was not a bogus Amendment; it was a bona fide offer, and he was quite ready to go to a division. On its merits it was a reasonable proposal. It was not so much out of consideration for the feeling of hon. Members on the other side of the House as out of consideration for the feelings of Nonconformists as a body that they did not wish to do a gratuitously aggressive thing by forcing this proposal upon them by a division. He therefore asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment put, and negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4:—
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished to move the omission in Section (d), Clause 4, page 2, line 5, the words "in the case of Wales or the County of Monmouth." He wanted to extend that schedule to the whole country. There was a very large Welsh population in England, and if his amendment were adopted it simply meant that a language column would be added to all the English as well as Welsh papers. This suggestion was made at the last census, but too late, and there was a promise that it would be considered when the next census came round. If it were found on report that
it would be impossible to carry out his suggestion, the clause could be restored as it now stood.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 5, to leave out the words 'in the case of Wales or the County of Monmouth.' "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not think the hon. Member quite appreciated the enormous additional labour that would be caused by his proposal, and there was no reason why that additional labour should be imposed on the enumerators.
MR. LOUGHhoped that the suggestion would be further considered. There were thirty-five churches in London in which Welsh was spoken, and quite as many in Liverpool and Manchester; and such a return would give a great deal of interesting information.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTShoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the point, because as time went on there would be a gradually increasing number of Welsh-speaking people in England.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 70.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Chamberlain, J. A.(Worcest'r)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manch'r

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Charrington, Spencer

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Arnold, Alfred

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Finch, George H.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Balcarres, Lord

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Fison, Frederick William

Banbury, Frederick George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Bartley, George C. T.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

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

Fry, Lewis

Beckett, Ernest William

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Galloway, W. Johnson

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Garfit, William

Bill, Charles

Curzon, Viscount

Gedge, Sydney

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Bond, Edward

Denny, Colonel

Gilliat, John Saunders

Brassey, Albert

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Butcher, John George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Faber, George Denison

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Ld. George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Rutherford, John

Heath, James

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Seely, Charles Hilton

Helder, Augustus

Milward, Colonel Victor

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Monk, Charles James

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Howell, William Tudor

Monckton, Edward Philip

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Morgan, Hn. Fred(Monm'thsh.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Morrell, George Herbert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Kenyon, James

Muntz, Philip A.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

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

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

Kimber, Henry

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Thornton, Percy M.

Lafone, Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Webster, Sir Richard E.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Pilkiugton, Rich.(Lancs N'wt'n

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-undr-L.)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Williams, Joseph P. (Birm.)

Lowe, Francis William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lowles, John

Purvis, Robert

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Richards, Henry Charles

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

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. Stuart-

Macdona, John Cumming

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Wyndham, George

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

Robson, William Snowdon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh W.)

Round, James

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

M'Killop, James

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Kilbride, Denis

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Billson, Alfred

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Lough, Thomas

Souttar, Robinson

Broadhurst, Henry

Macaleese, Daniel

Steadman, William Charles

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

M'Crae, George

Strachey, Edward

Burns, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Maddison, Fred.

Tanner, Charles Kearnes

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Channing, Francis Allston

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Donelan, Captain A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ure, Alexander

Doogan, P. C.

O'Malley, William

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Duckworth, James

Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Evans, Sir Francis H (South'ton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Yoxall, James Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Price, Robert John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fenwick, Charles

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. William Jones.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Redmond, William (Clare)

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LOWLESwished to draw attention to section 4 of Clause 4 in reference to tenements and dwelling-houses. He knew of a case where 350 different flats were recorded by the Registrar General as seven inhabited houses. That materially affected the grants under the Equalisation of Rates Act. Every separate tenement should be returned as a definite dwelling-house in that schedule rather than the blocks.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that one of the difficulties about applying this Bill to Scotland was that in Scotland a tenement was a whole block of buildings, and in
1016
England it was each individual house or suite of apartments in a block; and when they went to the interpretation clause they found no definition of a house or tenement. There was, therefore, ambiguity as to how this particular sub-section was to apply to Scotland at all. Formally he moved to omit sub-section 4.
Amendment proposed—
"On page 2, line 23, to leave out sub-section 4."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
Question proposed, "That sub-section 4 stand part of the clause."
MR. CHAPLIN: said that sub-section 4 applied to Scotland in precisely the same way as in England. It said that—
"Where a dwelling-house is let or sub-let in different tenements or apartments, and occupied distinctly by different persons or families, a separate schedule shall be left with or for and shall be filled up by the occupier of each such distinct tenement or apartment."
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5:—
SIR T. G. FARDELLmoved to insert in page 3, line 5, after the word "parishes," the word "wards." It would, he contended, be far more satisfactory for health purposes, especially in boroughs, if the particulars were furnished by wards rather than by parishes. He understood that instructions were to be given to the enumerators to take the particulars by wards instead of by parishes if necessary, but no harm whatever would be done if that were put in the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 5, after the word 'parishes' to insert the word 'wards.' "—(Sir T. G. Fardell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'wards' be there inserted."
MR. CHAPLINsaid he would be very glad to accept the Amendment if he thought it was necessary, but that was not the case. The word "ward" was not in the old Act, but under Clause 10 power was given to enable the authorities to prescribe that the census should be taken by wards, and that was what was done in all boroughs. The Government would see that that was also done on this occasion by instruction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:—
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSmoved it page 3, line 33, to leave out "may, if he thinks fit," and insert "shall." The meaning of his Amendment was that at
1018
the request and cost of any county council, borough, or urban district council abstracts containing any useful information in the census returns with respect to that county, borough, or district council should be supplied by the Registrar General on demand. He could see no reason why this important information should be kept at the discretion of the Registrar General.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 33, to leave out 'may, if he thinks fit,' in order to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHAPLINcould not accept an Amendment which would make it compulsory on the Registrar General to furnish these returns. There would be no unwillingness whatever to grant any reasonable information; but some discretion should be left to the Registrar General, for otherwise demands might be made upon him which would be quite unreasonable.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that although he himself thought it would be better if the power were not left in the hands of the Registrar General absolutely; still he assumed that the Local Government Board would see that the local authorities were considered, and on that assurance he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9, 10, and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:—
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: asked why in the application of the Bill to Scotland, "Secretary for Scotland" should be substituted for "Local Government Board."
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): There has been no change in the policy of taking the census since the last time. As a matter of fact, from the constitution of the staff in the office, it is very much more convenient that the work should be done in the office of the Secretary for

1019
Scotland than in the office of the Local Government Board. There is really an advantage in having it done in the former office. The office of the Secretary for Scotland is more in consonance with the office of the Local Government Board of England than is the office of the Local Government Board of Scotland.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. Lowther (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
*MR. JEFFREYSmoved on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Ayr Burghs to insert in page 1, line 8, after "required," the words "or in respect of a qualification by which he votes as a lodger." The word "lodger" was mentioned in the Act of 1891, though it was omitted from the present Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, after 'required,' to insert the words 'or in respect of a qualification by which he votes as a lodger.' "—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I can assure my hon. friend that these words are not necessary, and that it would be undesirable to insert them. We of course intend that this Bill shall apply to the lodger franchise, assuming the lodgings are kept on. It has been brought to my attention that in order to secure the lodger franchise under the existing law a claim must be sent in signed by the lodger. In order to meet the difficulty of the absence of the lodger, I am prepared to accept an Amendment that the lodger's declaration may be signed by the landlord. It would be more convenient to do it in that way.
COLONEL DENNYasked if a lodger who left the country as a Volunteer was disqualified.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is absolutely necessary that he should maintain his qualification, but he will not be subject to the disadvantage attaching to more than four months absence.
*COLONEL WELBYasked whether special exceptions could not be made in these cases, because it was not probable that the lodgings would be kept on. He was perfectly sure that the Government had no intention that civil penalties should attach to the Volunteers, but it would be very hard if lodgers were to be disenfranchised.
MR. BARTLEYsaid he could conceive a case in which the landlord might be troublesome, and would not sign the claim.
*THE CHAIRMAN: An Amendment will, I understand, be moved, which will raise that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment made.
*MR. JEFFREYS: moved in page 1, line 9, after "of," to insert "the permanent department and medical staff of the Army." Many of the medical officers, although not ordered, went of their own accord to South Africa, and had rendered the very greatest service. If they were absent more than four months they would probably lose their votes, and he thought the Committee would wish them included in the Bill. For the same reason he moved that the general staff should be included. The Bill now only included Reserve Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and he thought the permanent department and medical staff should also be included.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'the permanent department and medical staff of the Army.' "—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
Question proposed, 'That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: For the reason stated by the Home Secretary on the Second Reading of this Bill, it is impossible to accept this Amendment. My hon. friend wishes that officers on the permanent staff and the medical staff as distinguished from other Army officers get the benefit of this Bill. If we assented to that we should have no answer to the requests which would be made to us on behalf of other classes of officers who have gone out in obedience to orders. We have to draw a distinction between those who by the terms of their profession are liable to foreign service and those who are not. The object of the Bill is to remove the electoral disabilities under which Reservists and Volunteers might otherwise labour owing to their absence in South Africa. I do not say it would not be possible to include certain special classes, but if we accept this Amendment we cannot resist the claims of others, and we are therefore obliged to oppose it.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid he would appeal to the Government to include war correspondents in the Bill.
MR. MCKENNA: asked if war correspondents would be disqualified.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: War correspondents are not in the service of the Crown, and therefore cannot be included in the Bill.
*COLONEL WELBYsaid there was a very great difference between the officers that would be included by the Amendment and ordinary regimental officers. Officers on the general staff had more or less permanent appointments, and were not on the roster for foreign service, and if exceptional circumstances had not arisen they would be resident in the country now. The regimental officer, on the contrary, always went with his regiment. He hoped the Attorney General would be able to accept the Amendment.
*MR. JEFFREYSsaid that after the Attorney General's statement he would not press his Amendment to a division, because he had not the slightest chance of carrying it, though he thought it rather hard on the classes mentioned. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'not,' to insert the words 'In the case of a person entitled to claim the lodger franchise being so absent, his claim may be signed on his behalf by his landlord.' "—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think it is abundantly clear that lodgers should be included in the Bill, and I propose to accept the Amendment. But the question has been raised as to whether it is advisable to insert the word "landlord." The reason suggested to me was that there could then be no doubt that the declaration would be made by a person who knew that the tenancy or lodging was still existing. I think there is no possibility of landlords being unwilling to tell the truth in the matter, and although it has been suggested that we might make the provision more elastic by saying that the declaration may be signed by some members of the family I think we had better leave it as it is. We cannot take the wife, because it is not the universal case that lodgers have wives.
MR. BARTLEYsaid he could give a case in his own district where he was quite sure the landlord would not sign unless the lodger was of a particular political complexion. The Amendment would give the landlord a veto on the lodger's vote, which was a great objection. He hoped the Attorney General would make the provision more elastic.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid they had instances in Ireland where not only the landlord but the servant girl signed, with the result that a number of babies were placed on the register, and through the instrumentality of their votes the Government obtained a seat which they otherwise would not have won. He hoped the Attorney General would deal with England and Ireland alike, and that the same privileges would be given to servant girls in England as in Ireland.
*MR. JEFFREYS: asked whether the Attorney General would not insert after "landlord" the words "magistrate or minister of religion."
MR. MCKENNAsaid that the party agents on either side would be the only persons who would care whether lodgers had votes or not. Why not let them sign the declaration?
MR. JOHN BURNS: did not think a registration agent more reliable than a landlord. He did without the one, and he wished he could dispense with the other.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he should personally have no objection to a magistrate being the person authorised to sign the declaration.
Another Amendment made.
MR. MCKENNA: moved the insertion of a clause for the purpose of satisfying the demand that Volunteers should not be disqualified by going abroad to serve the country. On the day that a Volunteer left home it might be assumed that he was in actual occupation either of a dwelling-house or lodging, but from the moment of leaving he might be regarded as having ceased occupation of the house or lodging. If he kept up occupation the Bill would give him the vote when he
returned, but if he gave up occupation he would lose his vote. The hon. Member said his Amendment was very simple in form, and merely declared that Volunteers were entitled to be deemed to have remained in occupation of such qualifying premises as they were in occupation of at the time of their departure abroad.
*THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot move this until the first clause is disposed of.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid it would probably be convenient if he now answered the hon. Member. There might be a small class, he did not admit that it was a large one, who had not got the twelve months qualification by the time they left. It was not intended to put those people on the register. What was intended was to preserve to everybody who was on the register the right to continue on the register which they would otherwise lose by going away for a longer period than four months. He could not accept the Amendment, which would make the Bill a qualifying or registration measure.
Question put, "That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 71.)

AYES.

Allsopp, Hon. George

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Arnold, Alfred

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Curzon, Viscount

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Balcarres, Lord

Denny, Colonel

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

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

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hardy, Laurence

Banbury, Frederick George

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Heath, James

Bartley, George C. T.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Helder, Augustus

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Beckett, Ernest William

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Howell, William Tudor

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Faber George Denison

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Bethell, Commander

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Bill, Charles

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

Jessell, Captain H. Merton

Bond, Edward

Finch, George H.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Brassey, Albert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Kenyon, James

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Kimber, Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lafone, Alfred

Chamberlain, Austen (Worc'r

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning(Corn

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fry, Lewis

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Charrington, Spencer

Galloway, William Johnson

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Garfit, William

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gedge, Sydney

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Lowles, John

Pierpoint, Robert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton

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

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Macdona, John Cumming

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Warr, Augustus Frederick

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Price, Robert John

Webster, Sir Richard E.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.)

Purvis, Robert

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

M'Killop, James

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rentoul, James Alexander

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Williams, Jsph. Powell-(Birm.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Round, James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'hsh)

Rutherford, John

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Morrell, George Herbert

Seely, Charles Hilton

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

Muntz, Philip A.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

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

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wyndham, George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Penn, John

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fenwick, Charles

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Barlow, John Emmott

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Billson, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robson, William Snowdon

Broadhurst, Henry

Kilbride, Denis

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Souttar, Robinson

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lloyd-George, David

Steadman, William Charles

Burns, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Maddison, Fred.

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

Channing, Francis Allston

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crilly, Daniel

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ure, Alexander

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Doogan, P. C.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Randell, David

Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Courtenay Warner.

Duckworth, James

Reckitt, Harold James

Clause 2 agreed to.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. WHITE RIDLEY)moved a new clause with reference to the duration of the Act. It declares that the measure shall be temporary and applicable to the present war only.
New clause added:—
"3. This Act shall apply only to absence during the continuance of the present war in South Africa."
Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

ARMY (EXCESSES), 1898–99.
£100, Army Excesses.
MR. CALDWELL: asked the Financial Secretary to give some little explanation with regard to this excess Vote.
*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): In point of fact, as the hon. Member will see from the statement on the Vote, there is an excess in the appropriation to-day

1027
more than the excess on the expenditure. The excess on the expenditure occurs from unforeseen circumstances, the first of which was that too much was calculated as coming into the account in respect of the abolition of deferred pay. On the other hand, there have been additional charges for transport which took place through the unexpected movement of troops. That accounts for a very large sum.
Resolution agreed to; to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1899 and 1900, the sum of £466,770 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, the sum of £46,156,500 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CALDWELL: called attention to the fact that this was close upon the hour for adjournment, and stated that it would not be fair to Members who had not read the Bill to proceed with the Second Reading to-night. He criticised the provisions of the Bill with respect to the tenure of office and the qualifications of sanitary inspectors, pointing out that while the men had undergone no kind of
1028
qualification they were to be practically irremovable.
It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday, 5th April.

SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 27th June.
NEW BILLS.
  PETROLEUM.
  Bill to amend The Petroleum Act, 1879, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ure, Mr. Joseph A. Pease, Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, Colonel Denny, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. Cross, Mr. Reckitt, Mr. M'Killop, Mr. Tully, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. Trevelyan.
  PETROLEUM BILL.
  "To amend the Petroleum Act, 1879," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
  VETERINARY SURGEONS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to further amend the Law relating to Veterinary Surgeons, ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, Dr. Farquharson, Lord Dalkeith, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Shaw-Stewart, and Mr. Charles Douglas.

  VETERINARY SURGEONS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To further amend the Law relating to Surgeons," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Crystal Palace Company [H.L.].
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Central London Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GLASGOW DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a.
  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report of Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.]
  A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  COWES PIER BILL. [H.L.]
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [H.L.]
    EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

      ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
      LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.].
      SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Brownlow be proposed to
      894
      the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Avebury, and that the Earl Brownlow be chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

  NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 2nd and 6th instant discharged; and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
  The order of Tuesday last, referring the Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders to the Standing Orders Committee, discharged.
  MENSTONE WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.]
    EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  MERSEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
      LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.]
      Read 2a (according to order).
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants Information Office, for the year ended December 31st, 1899. Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Statements of account and of life assurance and annuity business, and abstracts of actuarial reports, deposited with the Board of Trade under "The Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870," during the year ended 31st December 1899: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for amendment of; of Lord Provost of Dundee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MONEY LENDING BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—BOER TREATMENT OF COLONIAL PRISONERS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, seeing the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in his place, I wish to put to him a question of which I have given him private notice. Some short time ago I asked him to be good enough to inquire whether there was any truth in the report that Her Majesty's colonial soldiers and Her Majesty's subjects belonging to Natal and Cape Colony, who had been defending their homes and had been taken prisoners, had been confined in convict prisons at Pretoria, or, at all events, treated in a manner quite different from that in which Her Majesty's soldiers had been treated. I should be very much obliged if the noble Marquess would now tell me whether inquiries have been made, and with what result, for I am sure every one of your Lordships will be of opinion that this matter is a most important one which does not admit of delay.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, since the noble Earl mentioned this subject to your Lordships we have received from various sources information to the effect that men belonging to Her Majesty's colonial forces are treated with greater severity than soldiers of the British Regular forces. We are endeavouring to ascertain whether this is the case. I need not assure my noble
896
friend that we regard the matter as a grave one, and if these statements are corroborated we shall certainly make representations in regard to the matter.

TELEGRAMS TO SOLDIERS ON SERVICE.
*THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is able to announce any further concessions with regard to the rates for telegrams to the troops in South Africa.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad to say that we have received from the Eastern Telegraph Company an intimation that they are prepared to make several very important concessions in this matter. In the first place they are prepared to arrange that all messages addressed to soldiers and sailors serving in South Africa shall be sent at a reduced rate of 2s. a word instead of 4s. a word. In the next place, in the case of officers the rank, and in the case of non-commissioned officers and men the name, of the person to whom the message is addressed may at the sender's risk be omitted, the regimental number alone being given in the latter case. In the next place, the rest of the address, including Cape Town, will be charged as one word. Thus, if I may give your Lord ships a concrete example, a message sent addressed "No. 3383, 2nd Battalion Wiltshire Regiment, Cape Town," would be changed as two words only. These proposals have been referred to the postal authorities at Cape Town, but I have every reason to hope that an arrangement on that basis will be immediately introduced.
*THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I beg to thank the noble Marquess for the extremely satisfactory answer he has been able to give to my question. I am sure the concessions to which he has referred will be gratefully received throughout the country.

MILITIA RECRUITS SENT TO SOUTH AFRICA—MUSKETRY TRAINING.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War if it is the case that Milita recruits have been sent to South Africa

897
without having previously gone through a recruit's course of musketry.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it is the case that some Militiamen have gone to South Africa who have not gone through the recruit's course of musketry. The recruit's course of musketry can, as the noble Duke knows, be gone through at any time during a man's first year of service, and it was thought that of all the men who had not gone through the course were left behind the result would be that the Militia battalions would be deprived of the services of a number of men who, in point of age and in other respects, were quite fit to go out with their battalions. I may remind the noble Duke that these Militia battalions are intended to do duty on the lines of communication in South Africa under conditions which will, it is expected, give them ample opportunity of going through practice in musketry. It may also, perhaps, interest him to know that on board every transport which is taking out Militia battalions a certain number of rounds of ammunition are supplied for the purpose of musketry practice on board, and I am bound to say that if a man learns to hit the mark at all under such trying circumstances he probably would become a deadly shot by the time he reached his destination in South Africa.

MILITIA EQUIPMENT.
LORD BLYTHSWOOD: My Lords, I beg to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that Militia regiments have been sent to South Africa with old belts and equipment which has proved useless; and to ask whether new equipment should not at once be served out to these regiments. I trust my noble friend will not think for a moment that I hold him responsible, for the Militia equipment has been old for a very long period. I am confident that, had he been able, the noble Marquess would have seen that the Militia battalions were equipped as well as any of the soldiers of Her Majesty the Queen. Still, it is a matter of great importance. The equipment of the battalion which I commanded was old when it was sent to us fifteen years ago, and the names of the regiments who had worn it were upon it. It was quite obsolete, for we did not get it till another equipment was served out to the British
898
Army. When this battalion got to South Africa the men proceeded to scrub the equipment in order to get of the pipe-clay, and the buckles and everything else tumbled off at the same time. They were ordered to go to the Orange River the day after landing, and had to leave with their equipment all tied up with string and falling off their backs. Since then they have had to travel considerable distances, and I am sure the noble Marquess will not consider that their condition was one in which any battalion at the front should be placed.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I was somewhat at a loss, from the terms of my noble friend's question, to know what was the character of the complaint he intended to make. He speaks of Militia regiments having been sent to South Africa with old belts and with an equipment which has proved useless. Now, if the noble Lord suggests by that that Militia battalions have been sent out with worn-out and unserviceable equipment, I beg to tell him that he has been misinformed. If, on the other hand, he suggests that their equipment has been of older design than that which is issued to the greater part of the rest of the army, then he is perfectly right. The equipment of the Militia is an equipment of older date than that which the greater part of the Army possesses. It is not, however, the case that the equipment now in the hands of the Militia is not also in the hands of part of the Army. Part of the troops in India, the garrison artillery, the Army Ordnance Corps, and the Army Service Corps have, I believe, the same equipment as that now in the hands of the Militia, and, although the Militia equipment is of older pattern than that of the Army it is by no means a prehistoric equipment, nor, to the best of my belief, an unserviceable one. The new equipment has gradually been substituted for the old one in the greater part of the Army, and I hope in due time the new equipment will be given to the Militia as well as to the rest of the Army. But I have to add this, that if at the present time any part of the Militia equipment is in an unserviceable condition, it is the commanding officers of the Militia who are to blame for its being in such condition. It is clearly laid down in the Militia regulations that it is the duty of every commanding officer to see that the equipment of his

899
battalion is in a proper and serviceable state, and if he finds that any part of it is not in such a state it is his business to apply to the proper department for the substitution of articles necessary to make good the wear and tear of the equipment. If that has not been done the fault does not lie with the War Office, but with officers who have failed to perform duties clearly imposed upon them by the Militia regulations.
LORD BLYTHSWOOD: I should like to tell the noble Marquess that, during the twenty years I was in command of the battalion, I reported almost every year that the equipment was unserviceable in many ways, and seldom got an answer.
House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.