Sitting of 15 August 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Read the, third time, and passed, without amendment.

  AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHEK, Cumberland, Penrith): In moving the Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper I need only explain that they are all drafting Amendments, save one to Standing Order 153, which proposes to enable tramway companies, like railway companies, to raise one-third of their capital by borrowing. At present tramway companies can raise only one-fourth of their capital by borrowing, but Committees of this House have been recently allowing them to raise one-third, and it is now felt that the time has arrived when they should be placed in the same position as railway companies. Power, however, is reserved to the Select Committee to refuse this right in any case if they consider it necessary. I do not think there are any other Amendments which require any explanation, and I shall be obliged to the House if it will pass them as they stand on the Paper.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDclaimed the right to say a few words on this matter. Here they had a long series of motions dealing with private business. He did not propose to take advantage of the forms of the House to divide on them, but he did desire to call attention to the accusation readily made against the Irish Members that they desired to bring the House into contempt by an abuse of its forms. If that were true, here was an opportunity for taking half a hundred divisions, under the forms of the House, but they allowed it to go by, as they allowed to go by endless opportunities afforded by private business for what was called obstruction.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.)said he heard with great satisfaction the hon. Member's repudiation of the charge that he and his colleagues desired to bring the House into contempt. But, if such charges were made, they were due to statements by colleagues of the hon. Member, one of whom, at any rate, had publicly avowed that it was the intention of the Irish party to degrade the House of Commons until such time as Home Rule were granted.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I deny that.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, it was said.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had evidently made what was for him an unusual appearance at the time of private business in order to add fuel to the campaign against the Irish Members which was started at Blenheim. He was glad his hon. friend the Member for Waterford had repudiated the charge of bringing the House into contempt which had been laid at the doors of the Irish Members. For his part, he would never engage in any proceedings of the kind, simply because he did not think they would advance the interests of Ireland. If, when the Colonial Secretary brought his political career to a close, and began to write his last will and testament, the

  893
  Irish Members were still in the House of Commons—which he sincerely trusted would not be the case—the right hon. Gentleman would find them in the same force and in the same strength as they had been when they were in alliance with himself. With regard to the proposed alterations of the Standing Orders, he only wished to observe that he was sorry that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lords Chairman had not taken advantage of the opportunity and of the feeling which undoubtedly existed to really improve the Standing Orders, and put them into a more workmanlike shape. It was admitted the other day by the Lords Chairman that there was necessity for further improvement and revision, and he certainly had hoped that something would have been done to provide something in the nature of a digest of the Orders.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the suggestion of the hon. Member was well worth considering, and he would consult with his noble friend, but he was very doubtful if the House would be content to leave the matter in their hands. It might be desirable to appoint a Committee to deal with the matter.
  The Resolution amending the Standing Orders was put and agreed to, and it was ordered that it be a Standing Order of the House.

PETITION.
  BLAIR, WILLIAM.
  Petition of William Blair, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS. 1894 AND 1896.
  Copies presented, of Four Orders relating to the Foreign Animals Wharves at Deptford and Cardiff [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HIGHER GRADE SCHOOLS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th August; Sir William Anson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 357.]
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES (1899–1900).
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Returns of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of the United Kingdom from the 1st July, 1899, to 30th June, 1900; and of the Returns of Shipping Casualties to British Vessels elsewhere than on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of the United Kingdom, and to Foreign Vessels on or near the Coasts, or in Rivers and Harbours, of British Possessions Abroad, &c., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GERMAN TARIFF.
  Copy presented, of Translation of the proposed new German Customs Tariff, with comparison, as far as possible, of the Rates of Customs Duty contained in the proposed Tariff with the Rates at present in force on Imports into Germany from the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Rates of Import Duties levied in European Countries, in the United States, and in Japan upon the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894.
  [ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT.]
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 13th August; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 358.]

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 329 (Malta, Annual Report for 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Proclamation issued by Lord Kitchener, as Administrator of the Transvaal, on 1st July, 1901, respecting payments under contracts to purchase or lease land or mining rights, &c., entered into prior to the war [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIES (COLONIAL ACTS, ROYAL ASSENT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 14th May, 1900; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY RATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed to Inquire into the Question of Navy Rations, &c. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of additional and amending General Orders for the Regulation of Proceedings under and in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 359.]

  BENEFICES ACT, 1898.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address, 6th August; Lord Hugh Cecil]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 360.]

  Nature of Service.

  Number landed.

  Killed.

  Died of wounds.

  Died from disease.

  Total deaths.

  Wounded.

  Approximate number of days ashore.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men

  Legations at Peking

  Seymour's Relief Column

  Defence of Tientsin

  Tientsin Relief Force

  Bombardment of Taku Forts by "Algerine," 'Phoenix," "Fame," "Whiting"

  Various duties at Taku, Tong ku, and T'sien Ho

  Totals

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts).—Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 361.]
  EARLY CLOSING OF SHOPS.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Early Closing of Shops, with the proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, &c.—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
  BETTING.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Betting, with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, &c.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  NAVAL FORCES (CHINA).
  Return ordered, "showing the strength of the Naval Force employed in operations on shore and afloat in China, and Casualties incurred, during 1900, in the following form:—

  897

  SUMMARY, DISTINGUISHING VARIOUS BRANCHES.

  Number landed.

  Killed.

  Died of Wounds.

  Died from disease.

  Total deaths.

  Wounded.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Officers.

  Men.

  Royal Navy

  Executive

  Engineer

  Civil

  Royal Marine Artillery

  Royal Marine Light Infantry

  Totals

  —(Sir John Golomb.)

  PERSONAL PROPERTY (CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL TAXATION ABROAD).
  Address for "Return setting out the system under which Personal Property is made to contribute towards Local Taxation by means of a local Income Tax or local Death Duty in the following Countries: France, Germany. Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Holland, United States of America, and in all British self-governing Colonies and the Channel Islands."—(Mr. Strachey.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CUSTOMS AND TRADE REGULATIONS IN THE NEW COLONIES.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the termination of the war in South Africa, and of the establishment of settled government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, it is intended that the manufacturers of foreign countries shall have equal opportunities for trade with those of the United Kingdom.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The consideration of the customs tariffs has not yet been taken in hand, but it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to adopt any system of protective discrimination against foreign goods.

  BOER PRISONERS AT ST. HELENA—CASE OF GODEFROY.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the killing of Godefroy at St. Helena, an investigation before a coroner was demanded by the Boer prisoners, which demand was refused; and, if so, can he state why it was refused; whether, at the military inquiry which did take place, the friends of Godefroy were represented, and whether his representatives were allowed to cross-examine the military witnesses; whether the committee of Boer prisoners who communicated with the Governor in reference to this incident have sent in any statement; and, if so, whether such statement was considered by the court which conducted the inquiry; and whether he will allow the Member for East Mayo to have access to any correspondence which has passed between the camp committee, the Governor, and the President of the Court in reference to the shooting of Godefroy, and to the official record of the proceedings of the court.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The Report called for has not yet arrived. I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the question.
  MR. DILLON: I give notice to the noble Lord that I shall on the Appropria-

  899
  tion Bill demand an explanation of the unaccountable delay in the production of this Report.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What about your new colonial cables?

  DORDRECHT EXECUTIONS—COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE OF BURGHERS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has now obtained information, as promised, from South Africa and if he can communicate to the House what were the exceptional circumstances connected with the compulsion of British colonists to witness the execution of their countrymen at Dordrecht; who gave the order for such compulsion, if it was sanctioned by the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, and, if not, whether the officer responsible for it has been punished; whether these colonists were convicted criminals or prisoners, under what penalty did they attend, and what object was gained by such compulsion; and if he cannot give the desired information at present, can he state when such will be forthcoming, and if the practice is in the meantime to continue, pending information being given to this House.
  LORD STANLEY: The Report may be expected within the next fortnight. The further point raised in the last paragraph was dealt with in my replies on Friday last to the questions put by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.†
  MR. PIRIE: If the Report arrives during the recess will the noble Lord have it circulated among Members?
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot answer that without notice.

  VLAKFONTEIN.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reference to the despatch of General Dixoh on the battle of Vlakfontein, whether the sworn evidence mentioned by Lord Kitchener in reference to the alleged killing of British wounded has come to hand.
  † See page 272.
  LORD STANLEY: No, it has not yet been received.
  MR. DILLON: But Lord Kitchener refers to the affidavits as having been sent.
  LORD STANLEY: He said he would send them, and he has told us he was sending them, but they have not yet been received.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is Lord Kitchener waiting for the rising of the House?
  LORD STANLEY: No; he is awaiting the arrival of the Report.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the noble Lord say is there any truth in the rumour of Lord Kitchener's return?
  [No answer was given.]

  CONCENTRATION CAMPS—HOWICK CAMP.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the prison camps at Howick, in South Africa, an account is kept of all rations and clothing issued to each individual in the camp and debited against them; whether the same system is carried out in the other camps throughout South Africa; whether in keeping these accounts any allowance is made for the property of the individuals which has been destroyed or confiscated by the British troops, and whether any distinction is made between voluntary refugees and prisoners who have been brought to the camp by force and are detained there against their will.
  LORD STANLEY: Lord Kitchener's Report on the refugee camps in Natal has not yet arrived, so that I am not in a position to answer the question. I apprehend that the Report refers to the usual ration returns which are kept in every Government establishment where rations are issued.

  POSITIONS OF BRITISH TROOPS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office

  901
  whether he will lay upon the Table of the House maps of South Africa coloured to show the districts in effective occupation of the British troops on 1st July, 1900, 1st January, 1901, and 1st July, 1901, respectively.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. It is an unvarying rule not to publish, during a campaign, maps which indicate the positions of British troops in the field.

  ARREST OF A GERMAN WAR CORRESPONDENT.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Herr Meyerbach, a war correspondent in South Africa for the Berlin Tagblatt, has been arrested by the English authorities as a spy and is about to be tried by court-martial at Middelburg; and whether any communication has been received from the Government of the German Empire, of which Herr Meyerbach is a subject, with reference to his arrest and approaching trial.
  I beg also to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Herr Meyerbach, who has acted as war correspondent in South Africa for the Berlin Tagblatt, has been arrested by the English authorities on suspicion of being a spy, and is to be tried by court-martial at Middelburg; whether he will be given the assistance of legal advisers in his defence; and, having regard to the fact that he is a subject of the German Empire, will he be allowed to communicate with the German Consul.
  LORD STANLEY: In reply to these questions, I have no information on the matter alluded to, and no communication has been received from the German Government.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the noble Lord send for information?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.

  ROYAL GARRISON REGIMENTS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what progress has been made
  902
  in the formation of the Royal Garrison Regiments, and what is the present position and station of the several battalions.
  LORD STANLEY: The first battalion is at Malta and numbers 989 all ranks, the second is at Gibraltar and numbers 1,035 all ranks, and the third is being raised at Warley and numbers 910 all ranks.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received from the Dublin Trades Council a resolution pointing out the desirability of having samples of articles required by the War Department, and sent by Irish contractors, examined at Arbour Hill Receiving Depot instead of at Woolwich, and asking that workshops attached to military barracks should be more largely established in Ireland; and whether he can see his way to complying with this resolution.
  LORD STANLEY: This resolution was received, and a reply was sent on the 15th July expressing the inability of the Secretary of State for War to comply with it, as the stores required were not large enough to justify the creation of any local factory.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the noble Lord aware that the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland recommended the purchase in Ireland of goods obtainable there?
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of that.
  MR. NANNETTI: Perhaps, then, the noble Lord will look at the evidence given by the right hon. the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland before the War Office Organisation Committee.

  SEATON LINKS. ABERDEEN.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is any intention on the part of the War Office to take steps with a view to the placing of a military camp on Seaton Links, near Aberdeen.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; there is no such intention.

  ARMY LIST AND ARMY RANK.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that the official Army List, published in accordance "with the provisions of the Army Act, 1881, Section 163 (d), is under the Act evidence of the status and rank of the officers therein mentioned, he can explain why Lieutenant-colonels of the Reserve of Officers, with rank of colonel in the Army, are deprived of their Army rank on recall to service.
  LORD STANLEY: The Army List under the Army Act, Section 163 (d), is evidence of the status and rank of the officers therein mentioned, and the Reserve officers are also shown therein, with the commissions they held when on the active list. On the recall of a Reserve officer to service he is dealt with under the King's regulations.

  MILITARY WORKS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what was the amount expended, under the Military Works Acts of 1897 and 1899, on defence works, barracks, ranges, and staff and contingencies respectively, from the 1st April, 1900, to the 31st March, 1901; what is the estimated expenditure under those headings for the current year; and what is the total amount in respect of which contracts have been entered into under the Military Works Acts of 1897 and 1899.
  LORD STANLEY: The accounts are not fully made up to 31st March, 1901, but the following is the approximate expenditure from 1st April, 1900, to 31st March, 1901:—Defences, £400,000; barracks, £500,000; ranges, etc., £250,000; staff, etc., £50,000. The estimated expenditure for the current year will be found in Command Paper No. 518 of 1901, but I have reason to hope that we shall make more progress than was anticipated, in which case the expenditure will be larger. The total amount authorised up to
  904
  date for which contracts have been made is £5,691,670, but contracts involving a large amount are now under consideration, and will probably be accepted within the next month or so.

  CHINA—REWARDS FOR NAVAL FORCES.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what steps are being taken with regard to the issue of medals and clasps to the naval force employed in China during the recent operations; and whether he can give an assurance that the recipients of such medals and clasps will have the same treatment extended to them with respect to the presentation thereof as has lately been accorded to those who have served in the South African War.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The preparation of the medals and clasps for the naval forces in the recent operations in China will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. I can give no assurance with regard to the presentation of the medals and clasps, as the matter is one which must depend on the pleasure of the King.

  GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY'S ANNUITIES.
  *MR. J. E. GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared to publish the manner of calculating the rate of interest used in connection with the amount of Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company's annuities; whether it was identical with the process employed when the Indian Government terminated the lease and repaid the capital of the Seinde and Eastern Bengal Railway Companies; and, if not, what cause there was for altering the precedents of the past twenty years.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the manner in which the rate of interest was calculated by the Governors of the Bank of England in any of the cases mentioned.
  *MR. J. E. GORDON: Is the noble Lord not aware that a clause in the Scinde Railway Act, 1886, declares that "whereas the rate of interest to be used in calculating the said annuity has been ascertained in accordance with the provision…. And such annuity has accordingly been calculated and created by the Secretary of State"?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. J. E. GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is prepared to accept the method and details of the recent Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company's repayment as precedents governing the approaching repayment in 1905 and 1907 of the capital of the Bombay Railway Company and the Madras Railway Company.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The procedure to be adopted, if the Government purchase by annuity, will be that which is prescribed by the contract, namely, a reference to the Governor or Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England to decide the rate of interest which shall govern the annuity. But, as I have often before stated, I have no cognisance of, or authority over, the method or details by or upon which the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank may arrive at the determination upon the point referred to them.
  MR. J. E. GORDON: I beg to give notice that I shall bring this matter before the House to-morrow.

  INDIA OFFICE AUDITORSHIP.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the present salaries for the auditor of the India Office and of his deputy; whether those salaries have been recently increased, and, if so, when and on what grounds; what is the total cost of the auditor's department, and what relation that cost bears to the amount to be audited; what is the total number of queries raised by the auditor in the last five years, and what is the total sum involved in those queries.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The salaries of the auditor and of his assistant are respectively £1,200 and £800, rising to £1,000. They were increased to these
  906
  amounts in February, 1900, on the ground of the importance of the duties performed, and with due regard to the salaries paid for services of similar importance elsewhere. The total cost of the auditor's department, which was created by Act of Parliament, is about £7,000 a year; the sums which he has to audit amount to nearly eighty millions sterling annually. The total number of queries raised by the auditor during the last five years is 1,270; but this fact gives no indication whatever of the extent or importance of the duties performed by him.

  CANTONMENT OF RANGOON.
  MR. KESWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Public Works Department in Burma is insisting on taking over houses belonging to private owners in the Cantonment of Rangoon without paying the full and fair value of the buildings; and whether he will have the matter inquired into, and by arbitration or otherwise have the real value of the houses ascertained.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no information on the subject to which this question refers, but I will make inquiry.

  JAMAICA LAWS—FLOGGING.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to Law No. 21 of 1901, passed by the Jamaica Legislature on 4th July, Article 2 of which empowers the Jamaica Agricultural Society and any affiliated society to appoint constables for the arrest of persons suspected of prædial larceny, who, under Article 3, may be imprisoned on evidence not necessarily on oath; on whom Article 4 throws the burden of proving their innocence; and who, in the event of conviction of a first offence, may, and on subsequent conviction must, under Article 7, in addition to or in lieu of imprisonment, be subjected to flogging with a cat-o'-nine-tails, with not more than eighteen stripes if under the age of sixteen, or thirty-six stripes if over that age; and whether he will advise the disallowance of this law by His Majesty.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThe law in question has not yet been received;

  907
  when it comes it will be most carefully scrutinised. To judge from the reports in the local newspapers, the provisions quoted by the right hon. Member are not correct, and the law contains a suspending clause, so that it does not come into operation until His Majesty's assent has been given.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I have read the Act.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not seen the Act. I have only read the local newspapers, so that I am not in a position to say wheher the statements in the right hon. Gentleman's question are correct or not.

  MALTA.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the petition presented on the 13th instant from the elected members of the Council of Government of Malta, urging that a Commission be appointed to inquire into the system of Government in Malta, the language question, and the question of taxes; whether he is aware that a representative meeting has lately been hold in Malta which expressed its condemnation of the despatch dated 30th July; and whether a Commission will be granted in accordance with the petition of the elected representatives of the Maltese people.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) I have no information with regard to the petition in question. (2) Yes. (3) No, Sir, I do not propose that a Commission be granted to inquire into the system of government in Malta.
  MR. PLYNNasked whether it was intended to continue the government of Malta by Order in Council exclusively.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: When necessary, yes.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information in reference to the reports that the British flag has been hauled down in Malta and that injury has
  908
  been done to the statue of Her late Majesty.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to either of those incidents, except what I have seen in the newspapers. No official information has come to me.

  CAIRO FOX HUNTING INCIDENT.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's Bedouin servants, three of whom were recently punished for assaulting officers of 11th Hussars, near Cairo, some time previously, by Mr. Blunt's directions, flogged two Greeks who went into his enclosure until they were insensible; and what steps, if any, were taken in this matter.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): His Majesty's Government have no information of the incident mentioned. They understand that at the trial of the men accused of assaulting the British officers, the defendant's counsel mentioned that he had himself witnessed a case where two Italians who had trespassed on Mr. Blunt's property were bound and severely beaten in Mr. Blunt's presence. If the facts were as stated it was clearly for the sufferens to complain to the authorities or take legal remedies. It is not known whether they did so.

  NEW GERMAN TARIFF.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the proposal which the German Government are about to submit to the Reichstag raising the duties on English imports, and whether any steps are being taken by the English Government in the matter.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Copies of the proposed new German Customs Tariff have been received at the Foreign Office, and a statement has been prepared at the Board of Trade comparing the present and proposed rates, but I understand that the proposed tariff is still in the hands of the Tariff Committee

  909
  of the Bundesrath, who will probably not report to that body till the end of the year. The matter is actively engaging the attention of the Commercial Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade, who are I believe taking steps to consult the principal chambers of commerce.

  NICARAGUA CANAL—CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY.
  MR. PERKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the present position of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States for the establishment of an inter-oceanic waterway between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; whether there has been any reply to Lord Lansdowne's despatch of 22nd February, 1901; and whether the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty are still in force.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There has been no formal reply to Lord Lansdowne's despatch of 22nd February, but unofficial communications between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States have taken place through Lord Pauncefote, who is at present in this country. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is still in force.

  COAL EXPORT DUTY—REMISSIONS.
  SIR THEODORE DOXFORD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as it is the intention of the Treasury to remit the coal export duty on all coal shipped this year under pre-Budget contracts, an approximate date can be given for returning the amounts paid on such contracts, and for passing the balances of contracts exempt from duty if shipped by the end of the year; and whether, if an approximate date for the latter cannot be given, the Treasury can issue regulations to avoid the loss to merchants by the payment of duty on account of pre-Budget contracts.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The remission, as I have already stated, can only apply to con-
  910
  tracts fulfilling the conditions which I stated to the House on 25th of June. I cannot give an approximate date for all repayments in such cases; but much has been repaid already, and the Customs hope that all uncontroversial cases may be disposed of by 30th September next. In this, and in the completion of the work of passing the balances of contracts that are to be shipped duty free, much will depend on the degree in which contractors help the Customs by promptly and accurately furnishing cover contracts, and in arranging them so as to indicate the selling contracts to which the cover contracts respectively relate. The Board of Customs are using every exertion to hasten the work, especially in the case of the smaller and apparently needier merchants.

  BOOKMAKERS IN GUERNSEY.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that some twenty or more betting bookmakers calling themselves turf accountants have transferred their business from Holland to Guernsey, where it is not illegal, as in England, to receive money on deposit for betting purposes, and that the advertisements of these bookmakers appear in English newspapers; and whether he can take any steps to promote the assimilation of the law in the Channel Islands to that which exists in England, so as to diminish the temptation to betting in this country.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I will bring this question to the notice of the authorities in the Channel Islands.

  HACKNEY UNION—NURSE BEATTY.
  MR. BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the guardians of the Hackney Union decline to produce the papers under which they detained Nurse Beatty as a lunatic; and will he, having regard to Section 82 of 32 Vict., c. 5, direct them to do so.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have no knowledge

  911
  of the papers referred to, not have I any authority to give directions to the guardians of the poor. I presume the reference is to Section 82 of the Lunacy Act, 1890.

  BOLTON LICENSING CASE.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in possession of further information in regard to the proceedings at the quarter sessions for Bolton, on 12th July, in the case of the Standard Arms beer-house; and whether, in view of the facts of that case, he will take steps to insure the observance by the justices of Bolton of the provisions of Section 158 (1) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am informed, as the result of inquiries, that the borough magistrates, although present and giving assistance as to the facts of the case, took no part in the decision of the court and did not act as justices within the enactment referred to. In view of that enactment, however, I cannot help regarding it as unfortunate that they took any part at all in the proceedings.

  FISHERY DISPUTES OFF CULLERCOATS.
  MR. HARRIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received information concerning the attacks that have recently been made on the open sea and in the mouth of the River Tyne on fishing boats returning to Cullercoats by a steam tug and other boats belonging to a Mr. Ewen, and whether he is aware that the fishing coble "Harold" returning from fishing was run into and almost sunk, that her sails and fishing nets were seized, and the men on board were in peril of their lives; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the fishermen of Culler-coats are now obliged to arm themselves for their own protection; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of these attacks.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The Board of Trade were informed by the Admiralty on the 7th instant that, owing to the salmon fishery disputes off the mouth of the Tyne arising out of a claim to private fishing rights, two gunboats had been despatched to the locality. The Board have asked the Admiralty for further particulars.

  DISCIPLINE ON MERCHANT SHIPS—THE "MAB."
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has received any report respecting the imprisonment of the firemen of the steamship "Mab," at the Canadian port Rimouski; whether he is aware that these men refused to work, coal being part cargo to be shifted in the bunkers after one o'clock on Saturday afternoon; and that, although it is the custom on British ships for the firemen to cease work in port at one clock on Saturday afternoon, the master put the men in irons, and kept them lying on deck seven hours; and, seeing that this master has had trouble with his men on board other British vessels, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with regard to the treatment of the firemen of the "Mab" by the master.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Notice of the hon. Member's question was the first intimation I received of the case to which he refers. From inquiries I have made it appears that five firemen of the "Mab" refused duty and became violent, one even attempting to throw the master overboard. They were put in irons until the arrival of the police. In the district magistrate's court at Rimouski the men were convicted. One was sent to prison for eight days, and all forfeited two days pay. A counter charge was brought against the master by the firemen, but was dismissed. The Board of Trade have nothing recorded against the master.

  THE "LOUISIANA."
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any report with regard to the condition of the steamship

  913
  "Louisiana," when she sailed from Quebec on her last voyage; whether he is aware that when this vessel last left Quebec the master was compelled to jettison a portion of the deck cargo; whether he will ascertain from the master how many standard of deals were jettisoned; whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to ask the owners of this vessel to award compensation to the seamen who were imprisoned for refusing to proceed in the ship on the ground that she was unseaworthy; and whether the Board of Trade intends to take proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Act against the owners for sending this vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I have not yet received any report from Quebec with regard to the case of the "Louisiana." The owners, however, inform me that when the vessel left that port no portion of the cargo was jettisoned, but that certain deck cargo was discharged in port in order to remedy a list, after which a certificate of seaworthiness (of which I have seen a copy) was granted by the local authorities. As it appears that the seamen who were imprisoned refused to proceed to sea after the "Louisiana" was declared to be in a seaworthy condition, and as she was not sent to sea unseaworthy, the case does not appear to me to be one either for compensation or prosecution.
  MR. JOYCE: Arising out of the answers to these and various other questions relating to shipping matters, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a Departmental Committee will inquire carefully into these questions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I do not think I can appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into these matters.
  MR. JOYCE: What Committee has the right hon. Gentleman decided to appoint?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that question.

  ORIENT LINE—CONDUCT OF STOKERS—DISCHARGE CERTIFICATES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will request the Orient Steam Navigation Company to state the names of their vessels on which the stokers were drunken and mutinous, and the dates of the occurrences; whether the company prosecuted the stokers for the offences they are alleged to have committed; whether, on the discharge of these stokers, they gave them certificates of discharge, declining to report with regard to character; and whether they will state the names of their vessels on which they state they have sustained heavy losses, and the dates, in consequence of the wholesale desertion of their crews.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have referred this question to the Orient Steam Navigation Company, who inform me that they do not feel called upon to supply the information for which the hon. Member asks.

  SHIP BALLASTING.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Circular to surveying officers dealing with the under-ballasting of ships of the mercantile marine, which was promised more than four months ago, has been issued, whether he can state its terms, and whether any ships, and, if so, how many have been detained since the issue of the Circular on account of being unsafe through want of sufficient ballast.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Circular to which the hon. Member refers was issued to the survey staff of the Board of Trade in March last. It is to the effect that if a vessel is in such trim as to be unsafe, the master is to be warned, and if no steps are taken to remedy the fault, the ship is to be detained. No vessel has been detained since the issue of the Circular on account of being unsafe through want of sufficient ballast.

  PATENT LAWS.
  MR. JOSEPH LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether

  915
  his attention has been called to the conditions existing between this country and Germany and France in respect of the Patent Laws, and whether the Government will in the next session of Parliament take steps to assimilate the law of this country to that prevailing in the countries named; and can he state what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to carry into effect any of the recommendations contained in the Report, dated January of this year, of the Board of Trade Committee on the working of the Patent Acts.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand the first part of my hon. friend's question refers in particular to the forfeiture of patents for non-working which is provided for by the law in France and Germany. The proposal to introduce a similar condition in this country was considered by the Board of Trade Committee, but was rejected by them in favour of other proposals having a similar object. With respect to the last part of the question, the Bill which passed this House yesterday was intended to give effect to one recommendation of the Committee; the other recommendations are under consideration. I may say that I hope it may be found possible to deal with the amendment of the Patent Laws before very long, but I am not in a position at present to give any pledge on the subject.

  COMMUNICABILITY OF TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a letter from the Glasgow Fleshers Trade Association, consisting of 1,200 members of wholesale and retail meat traders, cattle salesmen, and farmers, supporting the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the communicability of tuberculosis from animals to man; and whether the Government have yet determined upon the appointment of such a Commission.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I have received the letter referred to by the hon. Member. The apointment of a Royal Commission is still under the consideration of the Government.
  MR. FIELD: Is there any hope of the question being immediately settled?
  MR. LONG: Yes, Sir; I think it will be settled very speedily.

  CHATHAM GRAVEYARDS.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the condition of two graveyards at Chatham, where coffins are open to public view, tombstones broken, and rubbish of all kinds deposited; and will he state who is responsible for this state of things.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. My attention has been drawn to the alleged condition of the graveyards referred to, and I am making inquiries on the subject.

  RATES ON PEABODY BUILDINGS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Peabody Trustees have refused the offer of the Southwark Borough Council of 12½ per cent. for collecting the rates direct from the tenants in their buildings in the Blackfriars Road, although they undertake the same work in their other buildings in Southwark for 10 per cent.; whether he is aware that by this arrangement the tenants, many of whom are poor, suffer inconvenience and loss, the allowance made by the Trustees being less than the tenants are called upon to pay; and whether the Local Government Board can take steps to put in force the former system under which the rates were collected direct from the landlord.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware that the Peabody Trustees, in conjunction with other owners of tenement property in Southwark, have declined to assent to a reduction by the borough council to 12½ per cent. in the allowance hitherto made to them in consequence of their paying the rates instead of the occupiers, and doing so whether the tenements were occupied or not. The whole of the tenants in the Blackfriars Road Buildings have agreed to pay the rates, and in consideration of their having to make these payments the

  917
  Trustees have reduced the weekly rents to the extent as near as possible of the amount of the present rates, less 15 per cent. The Local Government Board have no power to take action for the purpose referred to in the last paragraph of the question. The responsibility for what has occurred must rest with the borough council.
  MR. CAUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rearrangement tells against the tenants and in favour of the Trustees?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, no. When owners of property compound for rates they pay them on all the tenements whether occupied or not.
  MR. CAUSTON: If I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that it is so, has the Local Government Board any power to interfere?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly satisfy me of that. I am thoroughly conversant with the law. Besides, I have no power to interfere. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the borough council.

  SMALL-POX IN LONDON.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many cases of small-pox were treated at the Metropolitan smallpox hospitals in each of the years 1898, 1899, and 1900; how many of those eases bore vaccination marks and bow many were unvaccinated; how many of the fatal cases in each year were vaccinated persons, and how many were unvaccinated; and how many cases were certified by medical men to be cases of small-pox and subsequently turned out to be not so suffering; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such erroneous certification in the future.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that the number of cases of smallpox treated at the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the years 1898, 1899, and 1900 was five, eighteen, and sixty-six respectively. The number of cases which bore evidence of vaccination
  918
  in each of these years was five, fifteen, and forty-nine. There were no deaths in 1898; in 1899 there were three deaths, all of them vaccinated cases; and in 1900 there were also three deaths, only one of which was a case bearing evidence of vaccination. The number of persons wrongly certified by medical men to be suffering from small-pox in these years was thirty-one, eighteen, and thirty respectively. I have no authority to take any steps as suggested in the second paragraph of the question.

  ADULTERATED BUTTER.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the English King's Bench Division affirming the conviction of Messrs, Pearks, Gunstone and Co., trading as Pearkes' Stores, for selling butter containing a large percentage of milk or water artificially introduced; and seeing that frequent complaints against this practice on the part of this firm have been made, can he state what steps the Board of Agriculture propose to take to prevent a continuance of the offence; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same firm was yesterday, at Wolverhampton fined £36 for an identical offence?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): Yes. Until the local authorities have failed to carry out the duty imposed upon them of prosecuting in cases of this kind, and have been declared in default, the Board of Agriculture cannot itself take proceedings. If the local authorities should fail in their duty as I do not think is probable, the Board will not hesitate to undertake it for them. Meanwhile our inspectors will communicate with the local authority in all places and they are numerous, when we know that there are branches of this or other firms selling a similar product, advising them of the legal decision just given, and of the necessity for giving effect to it.

  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  MR. F. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the latest agricultural returns account

  919
  for only 86 per cent. of the measured area of Great Britain; and if the details can be given in the next Report of the 14 per cent. of land at present unaccounted for as non-agricultural, but which includes the increasing acreage used as garden plots and recreation grounds.
  *MR. BANBURY: The agricultural returns for 1901 have already been collected. The gradual increase of the non-agricultural area is, of course, due to the increase of buildings, roads, public recreation grounds, allotments under one acre, railways, parade grounds, &c.—and to ascertain the precise area of land used for each of these purposes would involve a long and costly investigation. A Return was issued in 1895 showing the number and extent of holdings of one acre and under—and there has been no great change since then.

  IMPORTS OF CANADIAN CATTLE.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will grant a Return showing the quantity and value of Canadian cattle imported alive, slaughtered at port of landing, and dead meat, in the several years from 1890 to 1900.
  *MR. HANBURY: I hardly think that a printed Return is necessary, but I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with all the particulars he asks for, so far as we have the information.

  MILK STANDARD.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to adopt any of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee besides those referring to a milk standard, and especially whether he intends to take any steps for ensuring that the addition of separated milk to whole milk can be detected.
  *MR. HANBURY: We are preparing circular letters to the local authorities calling their attention to the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the adulteration of cream with gelatine or other substances, and to the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts "generally, with the object of pro-
  920
  tecting the vendor whose milk is proved to be genuine though below the regulation limit, and of preventing milk being reduced to that limit if naturally above it. The suggestion of the hon. Member for earmarking separated milk by the addition of some innocuous substance is one which could not be carried into effect without further legislation. We also propose to direct the attention of local authorities to the desirability of a uniform procedure as to sampling and analysing the milk taken for examination, and to indicate what such procedure should be. The labelling of condensed milk would require further legislation. We have already made arrangements by which the vessels used in the testing of milk can be officially standardised at the National Physical Laboratory.

  THE POST OFFICE AND THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether an agreement-has been arrived at within the last few days between the Government and the National Telephone Company, and whether he will give the purport of the arrangement, if any, concluded.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question a few days ago.†

  POST OFFICE—LINESMEN'S AND MECHANICS' CLAIM TO STRIPES.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is now in a position to announce the result of the inquiry promised five months ago in reference to the giving of merit stripes to unestab-lished linesmen and mechanics.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has carefully considered the question and is not prepared to sanction the extension of the privilege of wearing good conduct stripes to un-established servants of the Department beyond the limits laid down in accordance with the recommendation of the Tweed-mouth Committee in 1897.
  † See page 287.

  AUDITOR GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what is the total cost of the Auditor General's Department, and what relation that cost bears to the total sum audited.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department for 1899–1900, including pensions and expenditure on its behalf by the Stationery Office, Office of Works, and Post Office, was £80,786. The amount of expenditure in 1899–1900 on account of Voted Loan and Consolidated Fund Services which was audited by the Department was upwards of £123,000,000. The Department also audited numerous non-voted accounts, such as the National Debt Commissioners' Accounts, the Supreme Court Fund Accounts, etc., etc., as to which figures cannot be furnished without considerable difficulty and delay.

  PARCELS POST DELAYS.
  MR. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the delays on the part of the Post Office in delivering parcels though they are marked perishable and immediate; whether he is aware that such parcels are sometimes not delivered, and whether he will consider the advisability of enabling any sender of a parcel to obtain a receipt as is now done with registered letters.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will give particulars of any parcels which have been delayed in their transmission by post or have not been delivered, the Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made on the subject. In the case of a delayed parcel the label or the address portion of the cover should, if possible, be forwarded to the Post Office. With regard to the other point referred to in the question, the hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. As stated in paragraph 8, on page 8 of the Post Office Guide, a certificate of the posting of a parcel can be obtained at any post office.

  CORONATION CEREMONY.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it has been proposed to remove the screen below the organ in Westminster Abbey in view of the coronation ceremony.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I understand that at the Coronation Committee a question was asked as to whether it was feasible to remove the screen temporarily, but no proposal was made, and the question was not discussed.

  THE WIDENING OF PICCADILLY.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if the widening of Piccadilly has been already begun.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. COGHILL: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the congestion of traffic in Piccadilly takes place only for a few hours on a few days in the year; and whether, before any part of the Green Park is taken away, he will first try the effect of removing the cab stand and cab shelter from Piccadilly.
  MR. MALCOLM: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consent to remark the effect upon traffic of removing the pavement upon the south side of Piccadilly before cutting down trees in the Green Park to widen Piccadilly.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The answer to my noble friend is in the negative. I am now in communication with the County Council on this matter, and in the meantime all work will be stopped. My hon. friend the Member for Stoke says "that the block only takes place for a few hours on a few days in the year," but I would say that my own experience, as well as that of traffic experts, differs entirely from this; whilst the removal of the cab stand and shelter would in no way abate the congestion at Hamilton Place, which it is the chief object of the

  923
  scheme to relieve. My hon. friend the Member for Stowmarket can hardly have seen the effect of his suggestion, which would cause the removal of all the trees now on the pavement, the majority of which will be saved under the County Council scheme, while the relief given to the traffic at Hamilton Place would be infinitesimal.
  MR. MALCOLMasked what was the use of widening Piccadilly for the purpose of traffic if they still left the trees on the south side.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: It is proposed in the scheme of the County Council that the greater number of the trees shall stand on refuges in the centre.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will the First Commissioner receive a deputation on the subject?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I shall be glad to receive a deputation of any Members of the House to-morrow to explain the scheme to them.

  DUMBARTON DISTURBANCES.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whilst the Rev. W. W. Mickimmin, Newry, Ireland, was addressing an open-air meeting in Dumbarton on the evening of Wednesday, 3rd July, a publican threw over him and others the contents of a bucket containing porter or some other liquor; whether, seeing that the Rev. Mr. Mickimmin lodged a complaint at the burgh police office, Dumbarton, against the offender, he can explain why no prosecution has followed.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I have inquired into the circumstances of this case. The reverend gentleman, who is a temperance lecturer and an Orangeman, persisted in holding a meeting in front of the publican's house, who is a Catholic, and made use of very insulting language in reference to the publican and his wife. His proceedings, which were renewed on a subsequent occasion, caused great obstruction and
  924
  nearly entailed a dangerous riot. In the course of the second address the publican threw a bucket of beer and porter over him. Counter charges were lodged of assault and of obstruction. After consideration, Crown counsel directed that no proceedings should be taken on either charge. I think this decision was right. The reverend gentleman recovered a sum of 30s. in a civil action for damage to his clothes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Lord Advocate endeavour to instil a little of this common sense into the Irish Executive?
  MR. CALDWELL: Then am I to understand that the sheriff decided both the civil and the criminal cases?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The sheriff decided that, although damage was done, it was not a case for a criminal prosecution.
  MR. CALDWELL: But was not an assault actually committed?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Well, it was a case of practical proselytism.

  ALLOTMENTS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he can state why the applications for allotments from residents in the parishes of Dunnet, Latheron, Thurso, and Wick, Caithness, under Section 26 of the Local Government Act, were refused.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Local Government Board are informed that in the parishes of Dunnet and Wick land for allotments could not be obtained by voluntary agreement, and in the parishes of Latheron and Thurso ground could only be had to a limited extent. The parish councils of Dunnet and Wick were of opinion that the expense of putting the compulsory clauses of the Local Government Act, 1894, into force were too great, and accordingly no action was taken. In Wick the applicants did not press their applica-cations on hearing that compulsory steps would have to be taken.

  PRESTATYN BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware the Board of Education has directed the building of a new Board school at Prestatyn, that the new buildings of the national school afford accommodation for 247 children, and the old buildings for 158; and that the total estimated child population of the district of school age is only 210, and the average attendance at the national and board schools only 105; and whether the Board of Education will reconsider their decision.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: May I also ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Board of Education have recently ordered a new board school to be erected at Prestatyn, Flintshire; and, seeing chat there are already three schools in this parish, the population of which is only 1,200, and that there is accommodation in the national school alone for 247 children, can he state what is the object of erecting a new school in addition to those already existing.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Board of Education has not directed the building of a new school at Prestatyn, but the matter is still under its consideration. I am told the hon. Member's figures cannot be accepted as accurate.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of ascertaining the opinions of the ratepayers?
  SIR J. GORST: The usual course will be taken. No order will be made unless there is a deficiency of school accommodation, and that will be ascertained in the customary manner.

  QUEEN'S ISLAND, BELFAST.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what measures of a permanent character the Government
  926
  intend to adopt to preserve the public peace in the future in the Queen's Island, Belfast.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Thanks largely to the energy and discretion of the Lord Mayor of Belfast, the measures taken by the Government, in consultation with him and other local authorities, have had satisfactory results. With respect to future arrangements of a permanent character, I am afraid I must defer making any statement in the matter until I have had the opportunity, during the recess, of a conference personally with the Lord Mayor and others who are best qualified to advise.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope I am not to understand that because for the moment the riots have ceased the right hon. Gentleman will take time to deal with this matter. Experience shows that these riots crop up at most unexpected moments.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I did not mean to convey that impression.

  DISCHARGE OF CATHOLIC WORKMEN IN BELFAST.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of Roman Catholic coopers in the employment of the Anglo-American Oil Company, in Belfast, have been discharged from their employment on the ground that the company was no longer able to afford them any protection from attacks by workmen of other religions; and can he state what steps he intends to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question, which only appeared on the Paper this morning, has been referred to the Commissioner of Police at Belfast for report. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the question to-morrow.

  KILLCLOONEY ESTATE.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make a further statement in reference to the sale of the Killclooney tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: For the reason stated by me on Thursday last,…I am not yet in a position to make a further statement in reference to this matter.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when the Return relating to compensation for injuries to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary is likely to be distributed to Members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The preparation of this Return entails an examination of the police records extending over a period of twenty years. Every effort will be made to expedite the completion of the Return, but I am afraid it cannot be ready for distribution under a month or six months.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of the Constabulary Force Fund on its division into benefit and reward branches in 1883, the total amount contributed to the benefit branch by compulsory deductions from officers and men from the18th June, 1883, to the end of 1900, and the amount disbursed to members of the force, their widows and orphans, during the same period.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The date of the division of the fund into benefit and reward branches was the 1st April, 1891, not 18th June, 1883. The balance to the credit of the benefit branch on the 1st April, 1891, was £297,749 4s. 7d. The contributions to this branch, since that date, amount to £105,809 4s. 6d.; the disbursements from the same branch from the same date to £132,682 5s. 10d. The reward branch was opened without any balance on the division of the fund in April, 1891.

  DR. WALSH AND THE IRISH EDUCATION BOARD.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu
  † See page 63.
  928
  tenant of Ireland whether a second memorandum has been issued by the Board of National Education in Ireland in reference to the recent resignation of the most rev. Dr. Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin, and whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of this second memorandum, together with copies of the minutes of all further proceedings of the Board with reference to this matter and the documents mentioned therein.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must explain that when replying on August 8th, † the further minutes of the Board had not been brought to my notice; nor, owing to pressure of work, have I even yet had an opportunity of studying them. The hon. Member's question was before the Commissioners at their meeting held on Tuesday last, when it was decided that there was no objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of a second memorandum which was considered at the Board's meeting on 30th July in connection with the resignation of Archbishop Walsh, together with copies of the minutes of all further proceedings of the Board with reference to this matter. Steps will be taken to present these Papers to Parliament accordingly before the prorogation.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE MILL-STREET UNION.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an agricultural labourer named Michael Mahony applied for a cottage on the farm of a man named Noonan, at Coolinarny, in connection with the improvement scheme recently promoted by the Millstreet Rural District Council; that although Mahony and his father before him had, worked on this farm for forty years, Mahony was evicted by Noonan from the insanitary dwelling he occupied immediately after he had sent in his representation paper for a cottage; and that at the sworn inquiry the occupier represented that Mahony was an evicted tenant, and that consequently his application was reported on unfavourably by the Local Government Board inspector; is he aware that on the circumstances being subsequently
  † See page 61.

  929
  placed before the Local Government Board they modified their order, and sanctioned the erection of the cottage provided a written consent was given by the occupier; has such consent been given; and, having regard to the provisions of the Labourers Acts, where cottages are proved to be necessary, can he explain why an order was made for the consent of the occupier to be obtained.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are generally as stated. The Board could not consent to compulsory powers for acquiring a portion of the farm in question as a site for a cottage for Mahony without the consent of the occupier. But, if such consent were given, the Board would not object to the inclusion of the cottage in the Provisional Order. The rural council has been so informed, but so far no reply has been received. If the site is not included in the Provisional Order it will be open to the council to accept Mahony as a tenant for a cottage on some other site.

  IRISH TOWN TENANTS—PERPETUITY OF TENURE.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the present state of the law respecting tenants in towns in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of introducing into Parliament next session a Bill which would secure to such tenants perpetuity of tenure, compensation for improvements effected, the right of free sale of created interests, the fixing of fair rents, and which would provide machinery for facilitating sale and purchase as between landlord and tenant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot give any undertaking such as is suggested in this question.

  IRISH MACKEREL INDUSTRY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what price per hundred (126) did the Congested Districts Board obtain for mackerel during the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, respectively, whether
  930
  the contract for purchase of fish during these years was given to one buyer or divided among several, was the contract price fixed for the entire year in each case, and was the contract advertised and open to competition, and, if not, can he explain why it was not so offered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The prices varied at different periods of the years mentioned, and I am communicating details to the hon. Member. In 1899 the contract was given to one firm; in 1900 to two firms; and in 1901 to one firm. Every year circulars are sent to all fish buyers known to the Board, and an agreement is made with the firm offering the best terms for the fishermen. Tenders are not advertised for, but the arrangement made differs little from open competition.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not desirable to advertise for these tenders?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will consider that point.

  IRISH WEST COAST FISHERIES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of fish buyers intimated their desire to assemble at Arran, Cleggan, Blacksod, and other places during the mackerel season for the purpose of buying fish from the boats under the management of the Congested Districts Board, but found no opportunity of purchase owing to the fact that the boats are tied to a certain contractor at fixed prices, and will the Board change this system in future seasons so as to open these fishing stations to competing buyers with a view to obtain higher prices for the fishermen.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The arrangement referred to was made by the Board in order that the fishermen should be guaranteed a good price throughout the season.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what duty or duties are the steamers of the Congested

  931
  Districts Board engaged, and, in view of the prices now obtained for fish on the west coast, whether the Board wil utilise these steamers for conveying fish to suitable markets during the mackerel season.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is but one steamer at the disposal of the Board. It is usually employed in carrying fish barrels, timber, cement, fishing nets and gear. It also occasionally conveys members of the Board on tours of inspection, and at other times is employed in the work of protecting the fisheries. It is not intended to utilise her in carrying fresh fish.

  THE O'BRIEN ESTATE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three years ago the tenants on the O'Brien estate, in the townlands of Corglass and Cornakelly, signed agreements to purchase their holdings at sixteen years of the rental, can he state were these agreements lodged with the Land Commission, and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in carrying out the sale.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No agreements to purchase in the case of this estate have been lodged in the Land Commission.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES IN COUNTY CAVAN—MAJOR FAIR.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state (1) on what grounds Major Fair was selected to hold the inquiry into the proposed amalgamation of Granard Union, (2) whether he is aware that, since his appointment as inspector of this Union, Major Fair has persistently found fault with the management by the guardians, (3) whether any report was received by the Local Government Board from him advising the Board to add the question of amalgamation to that of separating the five Cavan divisions from the Granard Union, (and 4) whether some opportunity will be afforded to those who oppose the amalgamation of placing their views before the Local Government Board before a decision is come to.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Major Fair was selected as being the inspector of the district comprising this union. He has from time to time reported adversely on the management of the union by the guardians, but the Board consider that these reports were fully justified by the facts. The Board considered it desirable that the inquiry held should embrace also the proposal of the Cavan County Council to alter the union by adding a portion of it to the Cavan Union. The answer to the last inquiry is in the affirmative.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to have the inquiry conducted by the very inspector who has several times reported adversely against this union?
  MR. TULLY: Is it not Major Fair's desire to wipe out this union?
  [No answer was returned.]

  DESECRATION IN DONAGHMORE CHURCHYARD.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial wreath placed by the Irish National Foresters upon the grave of John Martin, at Donaghmore Churchyard, has been destroyed, and what steps the police have taken to bring the persons who committed this act to justice.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The wreath was removed from the grave and the glass case enclosing the wreath was destroyed. The grave was not, however, injured. The police are making every effort to trace the offenders.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it a fact that part of the wreath was hung outside the door of the Protestant clergyman's house, presumably as a protest against his allowing the demonstration in the graveyard?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I was not aware of that.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONE: How about the Union Jack

  933
  being hauled down at the instance of the Irish National Foresters?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: This is a ease of desecrating a graveyard, and not a question of the Union Jack.

  EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of emigrants who left Queenstown and Moville respectively for the States or the Colonies during the months of May, June, and July, 1901, and the number for the corresponding months of last year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of emigrants who left Queenstown and Moville in May, June, and July, 1901, were 7,911 and 1,121 respectively. In the same period of 1900 the numbers were 11,165 and 1,119 respectively—a reduction in the former period as compared with the latter of 26 per cent.

  IRISH UNION AMALGAMATION.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an opinion exists amongst the boards of guardians in Ireland that amalgamation of unions would be conducive to saving of the rates, and whether he will inquire the opinion of the Local Government Board inspectors on this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The general question of the amalgamation of unions is engaging the attention of the Board, and the opinions of the inspectors will be ascertained and considered.

  TRUCK ACT PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 14th December, 1897, at the Ardara Petty Sessions, county Donegal, fines amounting to £40, together with £4 costs of the prosecution,
  934
  were inflicted under the Truck Acts in the case of Deane v. Boyle; that by a ruling of the High Court in the case of Squire v. Sweeney this decision of the magistrates at the Ardara Petty Sessions was found to be illegal, and in consequence the £40 fines were remitted, and repaid to the defendant on 11th March, 1901; and that an application to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on 2nd April, 1901, for the £4 costs of prosecution inflicted on the defendant, was refused on the ground that the Lords Justices in remitting the fines imposed upon the defendant made no order respecting the costs; can he explain why the Irish Executive did not make an order for the remittance of these costs as well as of the fines, seeing that the costs were part of the penalties inflicted, and will steps be taken to secure the repayment to the defendant of the £4 costs of prosecution.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no legal power in the Executive to order a remission of the costs in this case.

  LIMERICK POOR RATE COLLECTORS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that poor rate collectors in the county of Limerick are required by the Local Government Board to execute a new bond with the county council, one of the clauses of which obliges the collectors at the end of each year to assume as a private debt any uncollected item of rates; can he state what is the necessity for the same in view of the fact that since the passing of the Local Government Act they executed a bond giving the necessary security; and will he direct the Local Government Board not to require the collectors to enter into this second bond.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question is based on a misapprehension. Under the County Poor Rate Collectors No. 2 Order a collector may be required by his council to enter into a bond to lodge, by a given date, the entire amount included in his warrant, whether collected or not. The form of the bond is not prescribed, but is submitted to the Local Government Board for approval as each case arises. Where a collector lodges the full

  935
  amount of his warrant, and has not collected certain items of rate, he can only recover these items as private debts, and consequently cannot distrain for them under his warrant. The Order was framed at the request of certain county councils, and has been very generally adopted by the councils in preference to the No. 1 Order, under which a collector only lodges rates actually collected by him.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL BOARD'S REPORT.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Report of the Agricultural Board, Ireland, for the year ending 31st March, 1901, may be expected before the rising of Parliament, and if there is any reason for the delay in its publication; if he can state the aggregate amount of the grants made by the Board in respect of agricultural purposes during the year ending 31st March to the counties of Antrim, Down, Derry, and Armagh, and also for like purposes the aggregate to the province of Connaught, and also the aggregate amounts raised or guaranteed locally in those counties for such purposes, and also in the province of Connaught.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report is rapidly approaching completion; the greater part of it is in the press, but it cannot be issued before the prorogation. This fact will not, however, prevent its publication during the recess. The delay, which is unavoidable, is incidental to the issue of the first Report of an important Department of the State. The aggregate amount of the agricultural grants made by the Department, conditionally, in the past year to the four counties named was £1,973, and to the province of Connaught £1,660. The local contributions guaranteed from the rates amount to £1,008 in the case of the four counties mentioned, and to £2,800 in the case of Connaught.

  ROAD MAINTENANCE IN ARMAGH.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the county surveyor of Armagh keeps great part of the roads of that county in his own hands; that
  936
  dissatisfaction prevails in consequence of the state of repair of these portions; and that two bridges are at present undergoing repair, so that access to Cullyhanna church and graveyard is rendered practically impossible; whether he will undertake to procure an account of the way in which the money has been spent on these roads; and whether he will instruct the Local Government Board to send an engineer to inspect them and report on them with a view to their improvement.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board has no information on the first paragraph, and no complaint has been made to the Board in the matter. In the event of a formal complaint being made by a rural district council, that the county council has failed to keep the roads in proper repair, an appeal would lie to the Board under Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1898. The Board has no power to take action such as suggested in the second and third paragraphs.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Is it pot the fact that where direct labour has been employed in the south of Ireland under the surveyor it has given the greatest satisfaction?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe it has in most cases.

  MONAGHAN ASSISTANT COUNTY SURVEYORS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a special meeting of the County Council of Monaghan it was resolved that deputies should be appointed to the assistant county surveyors, by which the duties of the assistant county surveyors would not be increased from the time of the Grand Jury; whether he can state if the County Council of Monaghan appoint deputies to the assistant county surveyors, the Local Government Board will allow the salaries to remain at £80 per annum, as was paid to the assistant county surveyors during the time of the Grand Jury.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I

  937
  am advised that it would not be competent for the county council to appoint deputies to the assistant surveyors otherwise than in cases of illness or incapacity.

  HOUSE VALUATIONS IN KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution unanimously passed by the Kerry County Council on the 8th instant, which states that the valuations of houses have been raised from £8 to £20, and from £8 to £26, and also from £2 to £11; whether he will make inquiries into these statements; and whether he can state under what rules the Commissioner of Valuation acts in deciding that valuation on small improvements shall be increased by 300 to 500 per cent.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioner of Valuation informs me that valuations in Kerry were made on the same basis and under the same rules as all other valuations in Ireland. When cases are brought before the Commissioner by the local authorities a revision of the valuation on the principles laid down in the Valuation Acts is made. A deduction of some 30 per cent. is given in Kerry to make the new valuations relative to the old. In every case there is an appeal to quarter sessions.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is these increases have been made on old buildings, as stated in the question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; if the parties concerned are dissatisfied with the interpretation placed on the law by the Commissioner, there is a judicial appeal against his decision.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case was taken before the county court judge, who upset the Commissioner's valuation, but that the Commissioner then appealed to a higher court and got the county court judge's decision upset?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I was not aware of that.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. T. M. HEALY—
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Select Committee, the appointment of which he promised when introducing the Valuation Bill, would inquire fully into all these matters.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the Kerry County Council to appoint an independent valuer?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can in no way interfere in the matter or impugn the judicial acts of the Commissioner.

  CLERKS TO IRISH CLERKS OF THE CROWN AND PEACE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the 9th section of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, providing that clerks in the offices of Clerks of the Crown and Peace should hold office during the pleasure of the Lord Chancellor, any, and, if so, how many appointments have been made; whether any clerks employed in such offices have been dismissed without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor; and, if so, can he explain why they were deprived of the security of tenure afforded by that section.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Only two clerks have been appointed under the provisions of the 9th section of the Act referred to. One of these gentlemen retired some time ago and the other is still in office.

  CAPPAMORE NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the teacher of Cappamore National School, county Limerick, though he was classed second division of first class under the old rules, and has given thirty-five years service, and the attendance of whose school is sufficient to warrant payment of first grade salary, has his salary now fixed at £2 less than the initial salary of his grade; and whether steps will be taken to give him, not only the initial salary of his grade, but also some portion of the increments to which his long service entitles him.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The average income of this teacher for the three years ended 31st March, 1900, slightly exceeded £128, and his consolidated salary was fixed provisionally at £129. First class and first grade are not identical, as appears to be assumed in the question. The triennial increments of continued good service salary are introduced under the new system of payments for service rendered after 1st April, 1900.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGE SCHEMES AT CURE.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has now considered the correspondence which has been brought under his notice relative to the application of William Kelly for a labourer's cottage on the lands of Garravaugh-Inches, in the electoral division of Carrigrohanebeg, Cork Rural District Council; and, having regard to the fact that it was supported by the landlord of the proposed site and by the district councillor for the division, and in view of the nature of the opposition of the occupiers, the Ballincollig Powder Mills Company, and of the rejection by the Local Government Board inspector of Kelly's representation paper, will he recommend a reconsideration of this man's application with a view to his getting a labourer's cottage.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have considered the correspondence which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. The Provisional Order in respect of the eight cottages sanctioned was issued on the 9th instant. It will, of course, be open to the Rural District Council to allocate one of these cottages to Kelly, if he is considered an agricultural labourer in urgent need of a sanitary dwelling; or, if the cottages have all been appropriated, the council may propose to build a cottage for him on another site when a fresh scheme is being formulated.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inspector's decisions have over and over again caused a great deal of dissatisfaction?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  IRISH ASYLUM TRADE WARDERS.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that trade warders in Irish asylums have to go on duty in the divisions after their ordinary day's work at their trade is finished; and will he, with a view to the protection of the health of the warders, and to prevent discontent, give such directions as will prevent the continuance of this system.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This is a matter entirely within the control of the committees of management of district asylums, and I have no power to give such directions as are suggestion.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to have carried out the suggestion contained in the question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no power to do that. We are often criticised for interfering with the work of local bodies, and where I have no power to act I do not intend to attempt it.

  DIRECT LABOUR ON IRISH ROADS.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what steps must be taken by the county and district councils in Ireland to enable them to put in operation the Provisional Order legalising direct labour on the roads on the 1st day of April next.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The steps to be taken by county and district councils will be fully set forth in a circular letter to these bodies which is now in course of preparation, and will shortly be issued. A copy of this circular will be sent to the hon. Member.

  KERRY LAND APPEALS.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that cases have been listed for hearing in the Land Courts in Kerry for over two years; can he explain the cause of the delay; and will he take steps to prevent the worry and expense to the farmers which this delay causes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A sitting of the Sub-Commission for the hearing of 126 cases from the Kerry district, in which the originating notices were served prior to 31st March, 1900, was held at Cahirciveen on the 18th June last. The inspection of the holdings in these cases will be resumed by the assistant commissioners immediately after the vacation. A further list for the county Kerry will shortly be issued.

  FORESTRY IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the interest taken all over Ireland in the question of re-afforesting, will he, with a view of promoting this object, advise the Department of Agriculture to supply young trees of different species to occupiers and owners of land in Ireland free of cost on condition that such trees are properly planted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have more than once stated that the Department hopes, in due time, to take up the work of re-afforestation in conjunction with the county councils. The councils are empowered to include provision for tree planting operations in the schemes they are promoting under the Act of 1899, and these schemes, if approved, will be subsidised by the Department. The Department is not prepared, however, to take the action suggested in the question, as it is precluded from applying its funds to schemes In respect of which aid is not locally guaranteed.

  PROCLAIMED MEETING IN GAL WAY.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a public meeting, summoned in the ordinary way, at a place called Cahererin, Athenry, county Galway, for Sunday last, was sought to be suppressed by the local district inspector; can he state whether a proclamation was issued on the occasion forbidding the meeting; and whether the police are entitled to exercise the power of suppressing meetings at their own will throughout the country.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The meeting referred to was announced to be held at Monatigue, and as the police had good reasons for believing that the object of the meeting was to intimidate the occupier of a particular holding, the Government decided that the meeting should not be permitted at this place. The promoters were warned to this effect. No proclamation was issued, as none was necessary. A meeting, which was not interfered with, was held elsewhere.
  MR. DUFFY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of tenants in this locality wished to prevent the sale by the Land Commission of a grazing farm over their heads to a big grazier?
  MR. WYNDHAM: They could have taken no step more likely to defeat their object than to hold an intimidatory meeting in the neighbourhood.
  MR. DUFFY: What other remedy had they?

  AGRARIAN DISTURBANCES IN SLIGO.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of Ballymote (county Sligo) Petty Sessions, held on 8th August, when charges arising out of alleged agrarian disturbances which were brought by the police against John Gilmartin, Vice-Chairman of the Sligo District Council, were heard and the cases dismissed by the court; and whether he will insist on being supplied by the police authorities with accurate information in matters of this kind in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case against Mr. Gilmartin was heard before a bench consisting of two resident magistrates and seven justices of the peace, four of whom are not in the habit of attending at Ballymote Petty Sessions. The evidence given fully sustained the charge preferred against Mr. Gilmartin, but a majority of the bench decided upon dismissing the case. I have no reason whatever, in view of the decision in this case, to question the accuracy of the information supplied to me by the police.
  MR. O'DOWD: Was not the only offence charged against Mr. Gilmartin that he had a party at his house?

  SERGEANT SHERIDAN'S CONDUCT-CASE OF DANIEL MAGOOHAN.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the result of the inquiries into the case of Daniel Magoohan, of Ballinamore, South Leitrim, who was convicted at the Sligo Winter Assizes on the evidence of a police sergeant, named Sheridan, who has been since dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Substantial compensation will be awarded to this man.

  RABIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that there have been only two outbreaks of rabies in Ireland during the year 1901, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the Order preventing dogs crossing and recrossing the Channel.
  *MR. HANBURY: The Order does not prevent dogs from crossing the Channel and coming to this country. It imposes certain conditions which, as the last case of rabies only occurred in April last, I do not yet think it safe to modify.
  MR. FIELD: The right hon Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my question. Will he withdraw the restriction on the dogs recrossing?
  *MR. HANBURY: There is no restriction on their leaving this country, it is only on their coming into it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the restriction will be speedily removed?
  *MR. HANBURY: I cannot say speedily. A reasonable period of time must be allowed to elapse to make sure the country is free from disease.
  MR. SHEEHAN: In view of the approaching coursing season, will the restrictions be removed for greyhounds?
  *MR. HANBURY: Certain exemptions were made and have been taken advantage of.

  SLIGO HARBOUR LIGHTS.
  MR. M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that petitions signed by shipmasters and others calling for the establishment of lights at Bowmore, a point at the entrance to Sligo Harbour, have been forwarded to the Irish Lights Commissioners, and have been ignored by that body, and, seeing that from want of those lights a steamer with 200 passengers on board failed to enter the harbour during a storm last winter and almost got wrecked, whether he will use his influence with the Commissioners with the view of having these lights established.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member for South Sligo on Monday last, I stated that the Commissioners of Irish Lights had informed the Board of Trade that they were of opinion that the lights asked for at Bowmore were purely for local benefit, and should not be established at the cost of the general lighthouse fund.

  BANTRY BAY FORESHORE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can explain why the undertaking given by his predecessor in the late Ministry that the Crown would not alienate foreshores without public advertisement has been departed from in the case of the Bantry estate, and whether, as the conveyance was only made in 1898, and would have to be produced in court in the case of any action for trespass, he could see his way to lay it upon the Table or permit its inspection.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As far as I am aware, no pledge given by my predecessor in the late Ministry has been broken. It is the practice of the Board of Trade to advertise in cases of open sale or lease of foreshore for works public or private. The conveyance to the Bantry trustees was not of this description. It was merely a conveyance to quiet the title of the parties subject to preservation

  945
  of public rights. The Bantry trustees held a good adverse title to the Crown. I am informed that the deed which has been enrolled in Ireland is open to inspection on the usual terms.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that a couple of years before the Crown sold the Bantry foreshore to Mr. Leigh White they replied to an application for permission to build a sandquay by Mr. John McCarthy that no further grant of foreshore would be given for private purposes in Bantry; whether this correspondence and that with Mr. White can be published, and can he state what is the explanation of the change in the Board's policy.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade are unable to trace any record of the sale by them of foreshore to Mr. Leigh White. An application was made in 1896 by Mr. John McCarthy for permission to construct a quay in Bantry Creek, but was refused on the ground that no further encroachments on the creek could be permitted unless undertaken for public purposes. I shall be happy to show the hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the correspondence with Mr. McCarthy.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then who was it sold to? Was it to Lord Ardilaun, who is only a trustee of the estate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of that.

  LOUGH FOYLE LIGHTS.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether representations have been made to the Irish Lights Board as to the necessity for the erection of a gas and bell buoy at the Tuns Banks at the entrance to Lough Foyle from owners and captains of Transatlantic and cross-Channel steamers and others interested in the port of Londonderry; and, with the view of encouraging the use of Lough Foyle as a port of call for Transatlantic steamers, whether the Irish Lights Board intend to give effect to the representations so made, and have the buoy erected.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they have received applications for the substitution of a gas-lighted bell buoy for the buoy at present marking the Tuns Bank, and that the matter is under consideration.

  IRISH LADY'S ESTATE IN MADRID.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in the case of an Irish lady (Miss Mary Teresa Barry) who died in Madrid on the 15th June, 1899, leaving considerable property in that city, a Dublin solicitor, acting for the next of kin, communicated with Sir H. M. Durand, British Ambassador at Madrid, so far back as 29th June last asking for information about the property of the deceased, and subsequently cabled requesting a reply, and offering to defray the expense of procuring the information, and that no reply has yet been given; whether he can say if Sir H. M. Durand received such communications; and, if so, why he did not reply; and will he see that Sir H. M. Durand, or the person whose duty it is to interest himself for the protection of the property of British subjects in Madrid, will give immediate attention to this matter.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Nothing is known at the Foreign Office of the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but Sir H. M. Durand will be communicated with, and requested to report.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Why did you not telegraph to the persons concerned and get an answer direct?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: We shall hear through the ambassador.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will put the question down again to-morrow.

  GOVERNMENT AUDITS IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that officers in the department of the Comptroller and Auditor General are permanently employed auditing public accounts at Devonport Dockyard, and as Dublin is

  947
  not much further from London than Devonport, he can say in what respect it would be less convenient to have audit office officials permanently employed in Dublin; and whether this matter will be more fully considered, with a view to giving Ireland a proportionate part of the expenditure under the Exchequer and Audit Vote.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The expense and store accounts of the Navy are examined by officers at the Exchequer and Audit Department stationed at Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham, because of the necessity for constant reference to current books and records which could not be spared to send to London. Similarly, certain portions of the Irish accounts, such as public education, General Post Office, and others, are examined periodically in Dublin in order to avoid the inconvenience of transmitting to London the local records necessary for their examination. The ordinary accounts of receipt and expenditure of the Irish Departments, with the necessary supporting vouchers, are forwarded to, and examined at, Somerset House, where the duties of his officers are more conveniently performed under the direct supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  IRISH POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the Irish Money Order (Post Office) Accounts are kept in Dublin, he will explain in what respect it would be less convenient to have Irish savings bank and postal order accounts kept also in Dublin.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The chief inconvenience which would arise from keeping Irish Savings Bank accounts in Dublin, while dealing with the English and Scotch accounts in London, would be that there would be trouble and delay in making deposits and withdrawals at post offices in England and Scotland in respect of accounts opened in Ireland, and vice versa. The postal order accounts between the Postmaster General and postmasters in Ireland, like the similar money order
  948
  accounts, are already kept at Dublin; but, inasmuch as the postal orders circulating in the three kingdoms are of a uniform series, they must all be issued from London, and the paid orders must be finally checked there.

  DONEGAL POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any rearrangement of the North Donegal (East Innishowen District) postal service has been made, or is in contemplation, consequent upon the extension of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway to Carndonagh and, if so, can he state what the arrangement is; and whether before entering into any new contract for the conveying of the mails by car, tenders will be invited publicly from car owners resident in the district.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether representations have been received by the Post Office authorities on behalf of the inhabitants of Malin Head district, county of Donegal, requesting him to extend the existing mail car service to that district by arranging for a Sunday service; whether, seeing that the Buncrana and Carndonagh Railway extension is now open to traffic, the mail car service from Derry to Carndonagh will be discontinued and the mails carried in future by the railway, and whether, in placing the new contract for a mail car service from Carndonagh to Malin Head, the Postmaster General will arrange for a Sunday service.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made respecting the postal service to Carndonagh, Malin Head, and the East Innishowen District (North Donegal), and an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible on the various matters to which he refers.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that if this car service is rearranged tenders will be publicly invited from local car owners?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the hon. Member to ask for the abolition of the car service.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Oh, no.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Well, the Postmaster General will inquire into the whole matter.

  CAVAN AND MONAGHAN MAILS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the desire of the people of Shercock, county Cavan, and parts of county Monaghan, that the mail cars from Shercock to Carrickmacross should leave the former town in time to catch the 6.13 p.m. train leaving Carrickmacross; and if he will agree to the terms of the memorial received on this matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As explained in a letter addressed to the hon. Member yesterday, the alteration which he suggests in the time fixed for the departure of the mail car from Shercock for Carrickmacross would probably give rise to complaint; and the Postmaster General is not justified, therefore, in sanctioning the change unless evidence is adduced to show that the persons affected are practically unanimous in desiring it.

  NORTH KERRY MAILS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that public inconvenience is being caused to the inhabitants in and around Ballyduff, North Kerry, by the fact that there is no delivery of mails on Sunday; and seeing that the surrounding towns of Lixnaw, Kilflyn, Bally-heigue, and Causeway in the immediate neighbourhood now enjoy the advantage of Sunday delivery of mails, whether he will grant a delivery of mails throughout the district of Ballyduff on Sundays.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made as to the possibility of establishing a Sunday post to Bally-
  950
  duff, North Kerry, and the result shall, be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is no delivery of mails at Asdee, North Kerry, between Saturday, 11 a.m., and the following Monday, 11 a.m.; and, having regard to the consequent inconvenience to the public, whether steps will be taken by the Post Office authorities to remedy this state of affairs by a better and more frequent delivery of the mails.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is no delivery at Asdee between Saturday morning and Monday morning. The Postmaster General has directed inquiry to be made whether the circumstances admit of the establishment of a Sunday delivery, and will communicate further with the hon. Member when the inquiries are completed.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is it not the fact that in some parts of Kerry the mails are not delivered?]
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Within the time stated—yes.

  LONDONDERRY RAILWAY STATION.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the existing station accommodation at Londonderry of the Lough Swilly Railway Company; and whether, considering that this company has had handed over to it the two Government railways—namely, to Burton Port and Carndonagh—His Majesty's Government will see that suitable station buildings shall be erected without unnecessary delay at Londonderry.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Londonderry station of the Lough Swilly Company is the property of that Company, and the Board of Works have no jurisdiction enabling them to call for the erection of new buildings, or for the alteration or improvement of existing buildings at it. Their agreements with the Lough Swilly Company in connection

  951
  with the Letterkenny, Carndonagh, and Burton Port lines give them no power to interfere in the matter. The existing buildings are not, so far as the Board are aware, dilapidated or in bad repair.

  DUBLIN-TIPPERARY MAIL DELAYS.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the delivery of the morning mails in Tipperary, Bansha, and Cahir has, on several occasions recently, been four hours late owing to the mail trains missing connection at the Limerick Junction, and whether he will have such steps taken as will prevent a recurrence of those delays which cause inconvenience to traders and business men generally.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to the delay of mails leaving Dublin in the morning. The Postmaster General regrets that on several recent occasions these mails have been late in arrival at Tipperary, Bansha, and Cahir, owing to failure of the connection between mail trains at Limerick Junction. The principal cause of the delay has been the very heavy tourist traffic for Ireland by the night mail train from London. The railway company have on several occasions found it necessary to run this train to Holyhead in two parts, and as the mail packet has to await the arrival of the second part, it could not be despatched until considerably after the appointed time. The London and North Western Railway Company have been urged to take all possible measures for ensuring punctuality; and inquiry shall be made whether any arrangement is practicable for reducing the delay in arrival at the places mentioned, when the mail train is despatched late from Dublin.
  MR. CULLINAN: Can the Government, which subsidises the company for carrying the mails, insist on punctuality?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the Post Office required the morning train to wait forty-five minutes at Kingsbridge, whereas at Limerick Junction it is only kept twenty minutes, and that hence the Waterford
  952
  and Limerick trains are often compelled to leave before the mail arrives?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that the arrangements made were believed to be for the public convenience.
  MR. FLAVIN: Why not compel the company to run a special train from Limerick Junction as they used to?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that.
  MR. FLAVIN: Next year.

  CAVAN AND LEITRIM RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he aware that the Post Office authorities in the year 1892 offered the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company parcels rates for the conveyance of the mails over their line of railway; that the weight of the mails carried has increased from 106 cwt. in 1893 to 151 cwt. 3 qrs. in 1900, and that the amount of the subsidy paid by the Post Office to the company for carrying the mails is only £30; and, seeing that the company, if paid parcels rates, would be entitled to a sum of £71 17s. 3d. for carrying these mails, will the postal authorities consent to give parcels rates in future, or leave the amount to be paid to the company in future for this service to arbitration.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The circumstances under which the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company were some years ago offered payment for the conveyance of a few mail bags at parcel rates have already been explained to the hon. Member. There has been an increase in the weight of the mails forwarded over this line since 1893, and the Postmaster General on several occasions has offered to increase the payment for the service from £30 to £40 a year. He would, however, not be justified in making any advance upon the latter amount. The hon. Member, as a director of the company, is, of course, aware that it is open to them to appeal

  953
  to the Railway Commissioners to fix the amount of payment.

  IRISH HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state who represents Ireland upon the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and if the representative of Ireland on that Commission has a knowledge of the Irish tongue; and, whether either the Record Commission or the Historical MSS. Commission propose to publish any of the Irish MSS. and State Papers in the Bodleian Library, the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, and the Royal Irish Academy; and if the authorities of any of these institutions have as yet been approached on this subject by either of these Commissions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said Ireland was represented on the Historical Manuscripts Commission by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Lecky). Whether his right hon. friend had knowledge of the Irish tongue he could not say, but he was quite sure the interest of students of Irish history would be safe in his hands. What they should publish was a matter for the discretion of the Commissioners.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to appoint a gentleman thoroughly acquainted with the Irish language?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the interests of Ireland are quite safe in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the present member for Dublin University.

  IRISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of transferring to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland the control of the work performed in Ireland by the Geological Survey under the direction of the Committee of Council on Education in England.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am advised it is not considered desirable that the
  954
  survey of the United Kingdom should be conducted by more than one department at the same time.

  PERSONAL PROPERTY (CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL TAXATION).
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will grant the Return relating to personal Property (contributions to Local Taxation), standing on to-day's Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no objection to the Return desired by the hon. Member, but as I am informed that, so far as the colonial information is concerned, much of it is to be found in the evidence published by the Local Taxation Commission, I would suggest that my hon. friend should consult the Secretary to that Royal Commission as to the precise form of the Return.

  THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the precise terms of the convention agreed to at The Hague Conference, also a list of the countries that took part in the conference; which of the countries there represented have since ratified the convention and appointed representatives upon the tribunal, together with the names of the representatives who have been appointed; and whether the tribunal is now definitely constituted and ready to commence its duties.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The three conventions signed at The Hague—namely (1) relating to arbitration; (2) to the laws and customs of war by land; and (3) to maritime warfare—together with the countries which took part in the conference, will be found in Parliamentary Paper, Miscellaneous, No. 1, 1899 (C9,534). The first mentioned has not yet been ratified by China or Turkey, while the ratifications of the United States, Roumania, and Servia are subject to certain reservations. The second was not signed by Switzerland or China, and has not yet been ratified by the United States, Sweden, Norway, and Turkey. The third has not yet been ratified by China or by Turkey.

  955
  If and when these accessions and ratifications are completed, the conventions will again be laid before Parliament in the "Treaty" series. Of the countries represented at the conference, all have appointed representatives at the permanent Court of Arbitration with the exception of China, Greece, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Persia, and Turkey. A list of representatives is annexed. The answer to the last question is in the affirmative.

  PRIVILEGE—THE GLOBE NEWSPAPER AND IRISH MEMBERS.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to call the attention of the House, as a matter of privilege, to a very grave and scandalous libel which was published in an evening London newspaper yesterday with reference to a large body of Members of this House. I propose to ask the clerk at the Table to read the passages of which I complain, but perhaps the more convenient course would be—and it is a course which has been followed on many other occasions—if I, in my own way, state the case and incidentally read the passages, and then I will ask that the clerk shall afterwards formally read them at the Table. In bringing this question to the attention of the House, I shall be very brief indeed, and for two reasons. First of all, the matter of which I complain is so gross and so scandalous in its nature that it will require very few words from me to induce the House to declare it a gross breach of its privileges. In the second place I will be brief because it is a matter which concerns the House of Commons far more than my colleagues or myself or any particular Members of this House. So far as the Irish Members are concerned, they have been accustomed—indeed it has been a necessary part of their fate—for many years to read very strong and very abusive attacks upon themselves, their characters, and their conduct in certain portions of the press of this country. These attacks seem to have suddenly developed under distinguished auspices since the declarations made by distinguished persons at Blenheim. Those attacks have been of a very violent character, but I confess that with regard to ninety-nine hundredths of
  956
  these attacks I pass them by absolutely with the most utter disregard. But they are nothing to be compared with the attacks made upon Irish Members in the years 1879 and 1880, and they are nothing to be compared with the libels which were published in those days with reference to Irish Nationalists in this House. Years have passed over since then, and the Irish Nationalist representation in this House has not suffered by those attacks. Irish representatives are here to-day, and during the years that have intervened since the period I have alluded to I think everyone will acknowledge that the Irish representatives have been able to impress their influence upon the Acts of Parliament passed in this House. So far as ordinary political attacks such a those which were enunciated at Blenheim are concerned, I pass them by with utter disregard, perfectly confident that in the future, and assured in my own mind it will be found that these attacks will have just as little effect in injuring the power of an independent Nationalist party in this House as the attacks which preceded them during the whole of the time since the Union. The question which I desire to bring before the House of Commons is of an entirely different character. I do not complain in the least of the most violent political attacks, and I do not complain of the rancorous and somewhat vulgar attack which was made by the Colonial Secretary at Blenheim. I do not complain of that attack at all. [An IRISH MEMBER: It is characteristic of him.] We know him, and we know his past connection with Irish politics; and we know perfectly well the value of these attacks, and how little reliance is to be placed upon them even for a day or a month.
  I pass them by, but I feel bound to call the attention of the House to the article in the Globe newspaper, because it is of an entirely different character. The accusation in the Globe of yesterday is an accusation of personal corruption in connection with the private Bill legislation of this House. It is a charge of personal corruption not brought against one Member but against eighty Members of this House. An accusation of that character cannot be tolerated by

  957
  the House of Commons for a moment if the House is to retain its respect as a national assembly in the eyes of the public, and if the private Bill tribunals, which have been the pride and boast of this Parliament, are to continue to deserve the confidence of the public. Let me now read this article. I will preface my reading of it by saying that it is an article dealing with the Blenheim declarations and dealing with the suggestion in the Blenheim speeches that there ought to be a reduction of the Irish Members. I will not go into that question, because we can fight that matter out when it arises, and it is a question about which I have not the slightest fear or diffidence. This article is headed "Irish Rowdies." I do not pay the slightest attention to a statement of that kind, because I think after the speech of the Colonial Secretary at Blenheim such statements are perfectly natural. I wish to read two or three passages from this article, which is an argument in favour of the reduction of the Irish representation. Here is the first passage which I complain of, and I will only read the particular words which I shall ask the Clerk at the Table to read. The article endeavours to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeas having madesome declaration in support of the Blenheim policy. I did not see any such declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, and probably to this extent it is a libel upon him. The article goes on to say—
  "Mr. Asquith clearly desired to embrace his own colleagues in the dictum. IT is with gratification that the public will recognise in this pronouncement by a man most probably destined to play a large part in the control of his party a clear indication that, for himself, he is at last determined to be done with truckling to the Irish rabble. That he, in common with all the more respectable members of his party, have long held such views in their hearts is a recognised fact. But it required the recent outrageous behaviour of the political mercenaries from the sister isle to wring from him a public admission of his opinions."
  The article then goes on to say—
  "It is a mistake to suppose that the majority of the Irish party are actuated by any real national aspirations, or that they care in the slightest about the principles they emunciate so loudly. On this side of the St. George's Channel we are so unaccustomed to political corruption that it seldom occurs to us as an explanation of the conduct of our public men. But in Ireland the case is wholly different.
  958
  The same spirit, the same motives that have made Tammany a synonym for politiea obliquity, have made the Nationalist party what it is. Many of those connected with it are the very ruck of the population, whose sole object is a pecuniary one—to make as much money by political jobbery and corruption as they can. Anyone who has had any connection with Irish private Bills or corporation contracts and franchises across the water can bear ample testimony to this. It is, therefore, no hardship to Ireland to reduce the number of these parasites on her national system."
  Now, I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is a direct accusation of personal corruption against eighty Members of this House in connection, amongst other things, which I will pass by, the private Bill legislation of this Parliament, and it is this allegation, of personal corruption in connection with private Bill matters which is put forward here as a reason and as an argument for the reduction of Irish representation. I beg the House to bear that point in mind for this reason. This newspaper this morning has published another article upon this subject, and in the article to-day they make the statement that they never intended to allude to a single Member of this House at all. They state that when they speak of political corruption they speak only of people in Ireland, and that they have no desire to point to Irish Members at all. They are guilty of what I must call something very nearly approaching in substance and in spirit a deliberate falsehood. What they state to-day is this. They proceed to quote the paragraph which I have now read—that is the paragraph speaking about Irish private business, which reads—
  "The same spirit, the same motives, that have made Tammany a synonym for political obliquity, have made the Nationalist party what it is. Many of those connected with it are the very ruck of the population, whose sole object is a pecuniary one—to make as much money by political jobbery and corruption as they can. Anyone who has had any connection with Irish private Bills or corporation contracts and franchises across the water can bear ample testimony to this."
  They quote that, but they omit to quote the words which I read at the conclusion, which are—
  "It is therefore no hardship to Ireland to reduce the number of these parasites on her national system."
  To-day in their article they leave those concluding words of the paragraph out

  959
  of their quotation, and they go on to say—
  "How could these words be held to constitute a breach of privilege. It is sufficiently obvious that the reference was not to the House of Commons, but to the Nationalist party in Ireland."
  That is an aggravation of the offence instead of being an apology, and it is a most dishonest falsehood. They have deliberately, in quoting the sentence I have complained of, omitted that portion of the sentence which shows directly that it was concerned with Members of this House—namely, the paragraph in which they say, "Therefore the number of these men ought to be reduced." That is the statement which I complain of. I wish to point out that this is not brought against one man, or even against a whole Committee of this House. It is an accusation of personal corruption against eighty Members of the House of Commons, and I say again that an accusation of that kind inflicts a grievous wound upon the honour of this House, and, even more than that, it inflicts a grievous wound upon representative government in every part of the world, if it is allowed to stand. If that statement be in any sense true, if it be not a libel, then it means that your private Bill tribunals, which have been the pride of this House, are corrupt and not to be trusted, and surely I am justified in saying that this is a matter which concerns the House of Commons and Parliament far more than it concerns my colleagues and myself, or anybody else who is attacked. I will say very little for my own part and on behalf of my colleagues. I leave it now to the House of Commons, and let them do as they like about it.
  I have not come here to beg the protection of the House of Commons. I am quite ready to meet, and my colleagues are quite ready to meet, any accusation, not only of political treason, such as we constantly hear made against us, but any accusations that may be made of personal corruption or anything else. We absolutely despise them, and we are quite content to rest confident in the goodwill and confidence of our own people in Ireland. We care very little what is said about us in organs of certain public opinion in England, such as the one from which I have quoted. I am not making
  960
  any abject appeal for my colleagues or myself. I am simply pointing to a grave scandal affecting this House, and it is for you, who are proud of the traditions of this House, and who love its honour and good name, it is for you to take such action as you may think fit. Before I conclude, I want to deal with two other points. If I chose I might very easily answer this attack by making a counter attack upon this paper and those connected with it. For example, the gentleman who is responsible for this paper is a man who appeared in the police court in London and was bound over to keep the peace for six months for an assault upon the police. [An HON. MEMBER: No, that was his son.] I am not speaking of his son, but of the person himself—Mr. Madge—the gentleman who is responsible for this paper. [An HON. MEMBER: He is the manager.] The manager, then, was bound over to keep the peace for six months for an assault upon the police, and this is the gentleman who heads the article which I have quoted "Irish Rowdies."
  I do not care, however, to develop that point, but I just want before I conclude to allude shortly to some of the precedents. There are so many precedents upon this point that I should not be justified in detaining the House by quoting all of them, or indeed many of them. Over and over again it has been laid down that accusations of this kind, and even far less grave than the one I have quoted, have been held to be grave breaches of the privileges of this House. I will only allude to one case, which is the only one I recollect which deals with precisely the same point which I have raised. The very last occasion when an accusation of corruption in connection with the private Bill legislation of this House was made was in the year 1879. In that year the accusation was of a very vague character, and had only reference to certain members of a particular Committee. A Mr. Grissell made a statement to a solicitor in the city of London to the effect that he could influence and control the decisions of a particular private Bill Committee, which was considering, I think, the project of the Tower Bridge. Then the solicitor asked him to put that statement in writing, and he did so, to the effect that he could influence the

  961
  decision of members of that Committee; manifestly that is a less direct and wholesale charge against corruption as against Members of this House than the one I have read. But what happened? The question was raised in this House, and Mr. Grissell was ordered to attend. At first he fled from this country, and did not appear for some time. Finally he was brought to the bar of the House, and then he was committed for a long period to Newgate.
  In connection with the same case a Mr. Ward, who was a solicitor connected with Mr. Grissell, was charged, not with having done this thing himself, but merely with having cognisance of the fact that Mr. Grissell had given this written undertaking that he could influence the members of this Committee. Even that slight and indirect connection with a charge of corruption against certain Members of this House was held to be so grave that Mr. Ward was brought to the bar of the House and also committed to prison. That is the last case in which anybody has ventured to make a charge of corruption against any Member of this House in connection with the private business of this House. I venture to submit respectfully that the case I have brought forward is far more serious. This charge is brought, not against one individual, but against an entire section of eighty Members, who are accused one and all of personal corruption in connection with this business. In the discussion of the case of Mr. Grissell, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, whom old Members of the House will remember, was a very weighty authority on these questions, said—
  "The only reason why I rise is to say that there was once a Committee, of which I was a member, in which something of the same kind occurred. It was now a good many years ago, and the present Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) was the chairman. Something appeared in a newspaper article reflecting upon the character of the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee considered the matter and reported it, and the House directed at once that the publisher of the newspaper in which the article appeared should be called to the bar of the House. If I recollect rightly the man was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and afterwards made a humble apology for what had happened."
  I quote that to show that in the most recent cases, in fact in all recent cases in which charges of this kind were brought against newspapers or other persons,
  962
  this House took a grave view of the facts. I know that of recent times it has been the custom where technical breaches of the privileges of this House have taken place to pass resolutions declaring that it is a breach, and then leaving the matter where it stood. I respectfully say that in a matter of this gravity to follow such a course would be quite unprecedented, and I venture respectfully to say quite inconsistent with the honour and dignity of this Assembly. I do not desire to say anything more. Here is a charge of wholesale corruption in connection with your Private Bill legislation levelled against eighty Members of this House. In every case before, when such an accusation was made against even the humblest of your Members, the House has taken serious notice of it. It has not merely declared it a breach of privilege, but it has brought the guilty man to the bar, and either censured or demanded an apology from him. Having placed the facts before the House of Commons, I ask whether a less stringent course will now be pursued, because the men attacked are eighty Irish Members, whom you have brought here against their will.
  The Globe newspaper of the 14th August, 1901, was handed in, and the passages complained of were read, as follows—
  "IRISH ROWDIES.
  Mr. Asquith clearly desired to embrace his own colleagues in the dictum. It is with gratification that the public will recognise in this pronouncement; by a man most probably destined to play a large part in the control of his party, a clear indication that, for himself, he is at last determined to be done with truck ling to the Irish rabble. That he, in common with all the more respectable members of his party, has long held such views in their hearts is a recognised fact. But it required the recent outrageous behaviour of the political mercenaries from the Sister Isle to wring from him a public admission of his opinions.
  It is a mistake to suppose that the majority of the Irish party are actuated by any real national aspirations, or that they care in the slightest about the principles they enunciate so loudly. On this side of the St. George's Channel we are so unaccustomed to political corruption that it seldom occurs to 'us as an explanation of the conduct of our public men. But in Ireland the case is wholly different. The same spirit, the same motives, that have made Tammany a synonym for political obliquity have made the Nationalist party what it is. Many of those connected with it

  963
  are the very ruck of the population, whose sole object is a pecuniary one—to make as much money by political jobbery and corruption as they can. Anyone who has had any connection with Irish Private Bills or corporation contracts and franchises across the water can bear ample testimony to this. It is, therefore, no hardship to Ireland to reduce the number of these parasites on her national system."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the passages in the article in the Globe newspaper complained of constitute a gross breach of the privileges of this House."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not think anyone can be surprised that the hon. Member who has made this motion should have brought the matter to the notice of the House, but I am sorry that he has used the opportunity of dealing with a question of a breach of privilege for the purpose of making an attack on my right hon. friend near me and myself in respect of matters which have nothing to do with the breach of privilege—matters which are entirely outside the House, and which, I think, he of all men, belonging to the party he does, ought not to have referred to in this connection: because the hon. Gentleman must be aware that whether the language for which we were responsible, and which I do not think either of us desires to withdraw—whether that language was right or wrong, it was bold of a gentleman and of a party who have certainly shown themselves to be possessed of greater resources in the art of violent vituperation, both in the press and elsewhere, than any other section of public men in this country. But, Sir, I pass from that, which was a parenthesis—an unfortunate parenthesis—and I come to a portion of the hon. Member's remarks which was more germane to the motion, and to which the House will, I am sure, listen with much more sympathy. The hon. Gentleman asks the House to affirm that the words read out at the Table constitute a gross breach of the privileges of the House. I am sure, Sir, that if the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman has put upon them, and which, I suspect, most persons reading the article would put upon them, be correct, there cannot be the smallest
  964
  doubt that a breach of the privileges of the House has been committed of a very grave character. The meaning which the hon. Gentleman and most other readers attribute to that article is that it accuses the Irish Members of having been personally responsible for corrupt practices in connection with private Bills. I cannot imagine an accusation more wounding or a more clear breach of our privileges, and I cannot imagine an accusation for which, so far as my knowledge and information extend, there is less substantial foundation. I have been in the sharpest conflict for most years of my political life with hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have said a great many things of me which I think were wholly unjustifiable, and I may have said some things of them which may have passed what they might consider the fair limit of political retort; but I have never accused them of pecuniary corruption. I have never heard that accusation levelled against them in connection with the business of the House, and I will not believe that that accusation has the slightest foundation.
  I believe we are all agreed that much less than this would have constituted a gross breach of privilege, and we are face to face now, as we have often been before, with the proper course to be pursued in this House. I have always held, and I have given expression to this view so recently, I think, as within the last week or fortnight, that this House can commit no greater folly than to enter into one of these controversies with the press of this country. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to us, in the interest of our own dignity and honour, to enter into such a controversy. The dignity and honour of the House have never been served by any of these conflicts. Nothing has ever come of them of which we have had reason to be proud, and the pages in our history, a glorious history, which relate to the dealings of this House with the press are not those on which we can look back with the greatest feelings of satisfaction. Let me say further in that connection, that the hon. Gentleman appears to think that the operation of having an editor up to the bar and committing him to prison for the remainder of the session

  965
  would in some way clear our fair fame in the eyes of our countrymen and foreign nations, and that something would be done thereby to remove or diminish the venom of the personal aspersion which has been made on the honour of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it must be obvious to the House that no such happy result can ensue from any exercise of our prerogative in this matter. Of course, if there was a trial before an impartial tribunal, if the editor of the incriminated journal could give his grounds before a judicial tribunal for his accusations, and if those attacked could also state their case, some results such as those desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by all of us would undoubtedly ensue. But merely by our votes to bring a man to the bar of this House, to make him apologise or to send him to prison—that clears nobody of anything. It is an exercise of powers which we possess by our immemorial constitution, but it is not a way of sifting a charge, and anything which does not sift a charge cannot really remove it. We are all subject to attacks—seldom, I admit, as gross as the one of which the hon. Gentleman complains—but very few of us, nobody as far as I am aware on this side of the House, have ever thought it worth while to call into play the inherent powers of this House in order to clear their fair fame. And one reason why they have not thought it worth while is that nothing this House could do would have that desirable result.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that in every case in which an accusation of personal corruption had been made against a Member of this House the course the right hon. Gentleman now donounced had been followed. In the most recent case that course was followed by the advice and on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, in 1879.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That case seems to me to be very different in many particulars.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It was not so bad.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It did not deal with so many persons. I do not
  966
  think there is the parallel which the hon. Member supposes between the circumstances of that case and the circumstances of this case. My point is that even in that case nothing was done to clear the fair fame of this House. The fact that this House sent somebody to gaol cleared nobody of an accusation.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the persons who were guilty of publishing a libel were brought to the bar of the House, were censured by the Speaker, and made a humble apology. In spite of that they were imprisoned. Surely bringing a man before the House and forcing him to apologise for his words was something more in the direction of clearing the fair fame of the House than merely passing an empty resolution and doing nothing more.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Remember that the person incriminated in this case says that he never intended it. It is revelant to the question of what would happen when he was brought to the bar to consider that he says he did not mean to bring the accusation which the hon. Gentleman and I agree in thinking was brought. He would say he did not mean it, of course, because he has already said it.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the writer quoted the article, but left out the passage in which the accusation was made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not defending the interpretation in to-day's article put upon yesterday's article. I only say he says he did not mean what the hon. Gentleman says he did mean. That is strictly relevant to the consideration of what would occur if this Gentle man were brought up to the bar of the House and interrogated by Mr. Speaker. But that is really not quite the point which I trying to make. A mere act or vote of this House would show that this House regards with indignation the course which it condemns, but that is, in the nature of the case, all that it can do. It shows that we consider that a gross breach of privilege has taken place, it shows that the House is not in sympathy with that breach of privi-

  967
  lege; more than that, in the nature of the case, it cannot show. For my part, I am still of opinion that the House gains nothing by these conflicts with the press, not one of which, so far as I know, has occurred for more than a generation. I have to admit that this case does bring to a head a difficulty which has been felt by myself often before, and by other men who have stood at this box, as to what form modern machinery for preserving our privileges should take in face of modern publicity and modern conditions of life. The only arms at our disposal are as antiquated, really, as the crossbow or the blunderbuss. The only weapons which we use are weapons that were forged in a wholly different state of society, at a time when no proceedings in this House were allowed to be made public, and when no criticism of an action of a Member of Parliament, as a Member of Parliament, was permitted, however true the criticism might be or however light the charge might be that was brought against him. Everything we now do is done in the light of day; every word that we say is reported; the freest criticisms are permitted and encouraged upon the action of parties, upon the action of individuals, upon the action of the House itself, and our only means of protection, in cases where protection is desirable, is this hopelessly antiquated method of bringing the editor, or whoever the offender may be, up to the bar of this House and calling upon him to apologise, and sending him to Newgate or the Clock Tower, not for a term of imprisonment commensurate with his offence, but for a term which is determined by the remaining life of the session.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEELL: He could be fined.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is an even more antiquated method. So far as I am aware, there is no even moderately recent case in which any person has been fined by the action of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: Charles II.] If there be a more recent case than that or not, I would venture to point out that if we have these discussions whenever our privileges are
  968
  assailed, either in a light manner or a gross manner, by any newspaper, or by private people, I think it is high time that we examined into the matter and considered what steps it behoves the dignity and honour of this House to take in the face of the species of assault which we have had to endure before, and which we shall undoubtedly have to endure in even greater measure as time goes on. Certainly I should myself be perfectly ready to suggest and propose a Select Committee upon this subject, not, of course, this session, but next session, to see whether something cannot be done to introduce order into chaos and to put us into a position of dealing properly, with dignity and on properly ascertained precedents and principles, with cases like this. I personally find myself quite unable to offer any advice to the House except the advice I have steadily offered in other cases where a similar incident has happened, whether the attack has been made upon friends of mine on this bench or upon Gentlemen opposite. That advice is to agree to the resolution that a gross violation of our privileges has been committed, but certainly not to enter into one of those conflicts out of which we cannot hope to come with any increase of that authority and dignity which it should be our first duty to maintain.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the question before the House was whether a breach of privilege had been committed, and until that question had been decided no discussion as to what action the House should take could arise.
  MR. ASQUITH: What I am about to say, Sir, will be very short, and I hope will conform to your ruling. Perhaps I may be allowed—particularly as for some reason or other my name has been introduced into this scurrilous publication—to associate myself in the most pointed way with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I believe it is the universal opinion on both sides of this House, independent of party, that there is not one shadow or shade of foundation for this allegation of personal corruption made against our colleagues from Ireland. It might almost seem insulting that anyone should make publicly such a declaration, but it is

  969
  forced upon us by the necessities of the case. Nor can I entertain for a moment as having any serious weight or validity the sort of extenuation or apology which appears to have been put forward at a later date by the writer or publisher of this article, to the effect that it did not mean that which it plainly expresses. Everyone, not only from the point of law, but also from the point of common sense, is deemed to intend language in the sense in which it is conveyed to the intelligence of the reader, and anybody who has read this article must admit that it is a charge, of the most open, definite, and unmistakeable kind, of personal corruption against the body of Members from Ireland. That being so, there really is no dispute whatever about the facts of the case. The question is, Can this House, consistently with its traditions and its universal practice, pass it by without notice? I think it cannot. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is most inexpedient for this House to enter into unnecessary controversies on trivial points, which have never resulted in adding either to the dignity of the House or the credit of Parliament. If this were a case which could by any possibility be regarded as of a trivial or trumpery description, I should say it would be entirely unworthy of the dignity of the House to enter into a dispute of that kind, and I should say let us pass it by and take no notice of it. But this case, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, stands in an entirely different category. If there is a case which constitutes a clear and manifest breach of the privileges of this House it is a case in which there is a charge of personal corruption against one Member of this House or a body of its Members. Therefore we must deal with this case on the assumption that we are dealing with as grave a breach of privilege as it is possible for the publisher of a newspaper to be guilty of. That being so, what is the advice which the right hon. Gentleman gives? He says—"Your primitive machinery for dealing with an offender in a case of this kind is so cumbrous and so antiquated that you had better never bring it into operation at all." I agree that the machinery is cumbrous, and that in many cases it is inadequate But if we are to accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument the law of privi-
  970
  lege disappears altogether, and disappears because the machinery which happens to be at the disposal of this House is, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman—I daresay it is the opinion of a great many of us—inadequate machinery. But so long as the law exists, and so long as the machinery which enforces it exists, it does appear to me that the House is not justified in departing from all its precedents and treating privilege as it it was absolutely non-existent. And I say the House should never be more reluctant to depart from those precedents than when, as in this case, the attack is directed against a body of Members of this House of whom a large majority are in sharp political antagonism with the Government, but are nevertheless entitled to the comity of the House. On these grounds, without transgressing your ruling, Sir, I trust the House without a dissentient voice will pass the resolution of the hon. Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he hardly thought the First Lord of the Treasury had realised what such a charge affecting private Bill business meant. This House was a court of justice; they called it the High Court of Parliament. He had sat for twenty-one years in the House, but had never sat on a private Bill Committee, though he had witnessed what went on there. Counsel appeared and pleaded before the Committee exactly the same as in any other court, and issues of enormous financial magnitude often depended on the vote of a single Member. Whatever charges of political corruption might be brought, the charge was a far graver one when it was a charge of judicial corruption, because if the Irish Members were politically corrupt, that, after all, only affected their own country, but if they were financially and judicially corrupt, it affected Scotland and England and gigantic commercial issues; it affected the whole business of private Bill Committees, railways, banks, and insurance companies, and it affected every class of business matters of which private Bill Committees had cognisance. There were the facts that they were returned for Irish constituencies and that they were poor men, because he supposed that was really the gravamen of the matter; it

  971
  was known that the Irish party was a poor party, and if under those circumstances the House allowed its judicial tribunals to be impeached, and for it to be said they could do with Parliament what the humblest police magistrate would not tolerate in his own court, what was to become of the House as a court of justice and as the High Court of Parliament? Take the case of any ordinary magistrate, county court judge, or even an Irish judge. The Irish Members had been in sharp conflict for many years with the Irish justiciary, but had any of his friends ever made a charge of corruption against a single magistrate, county court judge, or superior judge in Ireland? Never! Supposing one of them did so was it possible that the judge might say, "I rely upon my ermine; I pass by your accusation with contempt." And yet the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to a matter which did not affect the Irish Members a tithe as much as it affected the House of Commons and English commercial interests, said of a body of men who had been serving on Committees, "This is a matter to pass by with indifference and contempt." The cunning of the article was this, that it referred to Irish private business, when it was notorious that no Irish Member was ever allowed to serve on a Committee on Irish Bills. They served on English, Scotch, and Welsh private Bills, but, except in the case of a Hybrid Committee, when men were put on admittedly as partisans, they were never allowed to serve on Irish private business. Therefore, the charge of corruption, if it lay at all, had no relation to Irish business, but was in relation to Great Britain and its business. There was a time when Grattan said—
  "If you pass the Union, Ireland in a few years will send you scoundrels."
  He did not think that time had yet come, but it would be in the mouth of any libeller to say that it had come if the First Lord of the Treasury in relation to the High Court of Parliament, to his own Parliament, in relation to his own English affairs with which the Irish Members had no concern, but in regard to which they were bound to erye and act as jurors, would not give hose jurors the same protection which,
  972
  in the case of the trial at Sligo in the case of a land grabber, the Irish Government was the first to provide in order to vindicate the purity of the jury.
  MR. BROADHURST, who rose amidst cries of "Agreed," said this was a matter that affected every Member of the House. There was a widespread impression, even amongst the educated and professional classes, that Members of private Bill Committees were paid for their services. The gravamen of the charge was corruption in connection with private Bill business, and that, in his judgment, constituted the great importance of dealing severely with those responsible for the article in the Globe.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I ow beg to move "that the Editor of the Globe newspaper attend this House at Three of the clock to-morrow." I have listened with the greatest possible attention and, to some extent, with sympathy, to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. I am the first to admit that the weapons at your command are antiquated and not very effective, and that it would be a wise thing, probably, for this House to inquire into this whole question and see how we could improve our position so as to be able to punish offences of this kind in an adequate fashion. But I cannot agree that you have no means at your disposal—I cannot agree that the bringing of an editor to the bar of this House and compelling him to make a public apology is not some punishment. I do not take the view that it is an adequate punishment, but it is something. I say that this House will stultify itself if, having passed a resolution that this is a gross breach of privilege on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury and so many important Members of this House, it takes no further steps. Admittedly, the offence which has been committed is the most grave breach of privilege which can be devised. I do not want to argue that point over again, but by universal admission it is an offence of the gravest character. I take the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, that it is undignified and ridiculous for the House

  973
  to invoke the powers attending on breach of privilege in cases of trivial attacks, and I never would dream for a moment in the case of ordinary political attacks, no matter how violent or truculent they might be, of bringing them before the House. But a charge of this kind has always been treated by the House as the most serious offence of all, and I press this on the House of Commons—that even if you cannot inflict what I consider an adequate punishment, you can at any rate show to the world at large that, in passing a resolution of this kind, you are in earnest, and that you are anxious to inflict some sort of punishment on the offender. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife were good enough to give their personal testimony that they did not believe in these accusations. It was not to get these accusations disavowed that I brought the matter forward; but I believe the House of Commons, for its own protection, should take a further step, and that if you stop short now you will lead the public to understand that you pass this resolution with your tongue in your cheek; that you have no serious meaning in passing it. I say that because there is no precedent in all parliamentary history in which a charge of personal corruption of this kind has been made and the House stopped short at a resolution that it was a breach of privilege. The precedents which I have looked up where no further action was taken refer to cases where there was only an indirect charge of corruption against an individual or a small group of individuals; but there is no precedent where a direct charge was made against an individual or small group of individuals. There is no case in the books where there was a charge of personal corruption such as this when the House did not hesitate to go further. I admit that to enter into a conflict with the newspapers is not, under present conditions, likely to be pleasant. I admit our weapons are old, antiquated, and ineffective, but such as they are, they have always been brought into operation where accusations of this kind have been made. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the members of his party not invoking those powers, I take the liberty of reminding him that the very
  974
  last time when an accusation of personal corruption was brought against Members of this House, Sir Stafford Northcote, who was Leader of the House and Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought it forward, and moved two resolutions—first, that it was a breach of the privilege of Parliament, and, second, that the man guilty of it should be brought to the bar of the House. Eventually the House did make this rusty weapon effective; because the man was sent to prison; he made a most humble apology, and he suffered a good deal, because he was banished from this country for a considerable time in trying to evade the service of the writ of the Speaker. And one of his accomplices against whom the charge only was that he was cognisant of what he was doing was also brought to the bar and sent to prison. I am not moving that the editor of this paper should be sent to prison; probably that would be absurd in view of the fact that if he were to come to the bar to-morrow and were sent to prison he would be released within a day. But it is quite a different thing to bring him here and make him make a public apology. He has been guilty of a gross insult to this House; his article to-day is an aggravation of that offence, and if the House is in earnest, if it really agrees with the Leader of the House that this is a serious case, then the man who committed the, offence ought to be brought to the bar of the House and receive the censure of the Speaker, and be compelled to make a public apology to the House. For those reasons I move this motion that the editor of the paper be brought to the bar of the House at three of the clock to-morrow. I confess that my own feeling would be that if the House stops short now—because in this case the accusation has been made against Irish Members, who because they are Irish Members are unpopular, and who notoriously are a poor party and ought to be most carefully protected by this House—we would create a precedent which is not to be found in the annals of Parliament in the past.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Editor and Publisher of the Globe newspaper do attend at the Bar of this House to-morrow, at Three of the clock."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not much to add in point of argument to the speech I delivered just now. In its broad outlines it is not less germane to the question now before us. The hon. and learned Member concluded by claiming special consideration from Members for Ireland in the case of an accusation of the kind described, partly because they are in a minority, partly because they are unpopular, and partly because they are poor, and I do not deny that his argument has force. I can only say that the advice I have given to the House is that which I should give with regard to any of my friends if they had been similarly charged, and it is the course I should wish the House to pursue if such a charge should be brought against myself. The broad and general grounds on which I give the advice I have stated, and I still think the House would do well to follow it. But I am too old a parliamentary hand not to know that in taking that view I probably have not the majority of the House with me. So far as I can collect the general opinion of the House, it is that in this case, whatever inconvenience may attend on our procedure, whatever the possible ridicule that may attach to its subsequent stages, nevertheless the offence is so gross, and precedents are so clearlyin its favour, that this action should be taken. I do not think the precedent mentioned is quite on all fours with the present case, and the whole tendency of the last 150 years has been in the direction of not enforcing the privileges of the House, and I believe that is a wise and wholesome tendency. How far we should go, whether we should allow those privileges to cease, whether we should modify our procedure to meet the changed conditions of modern life, these are questions that may very properly be dealt with next session, but though I have given advice I think the House would do well to adopt, and though I do not take the responsibility of advising the House to take a course which I do not think will redound to its credit, I would recommend that no division should be taken, and that we might as well avoid a public exhibition of our differences.
  MR. ASQULTH: I think the right hon. Gentleman does well to yield, even
  976
  against his own judgment, to what is, I am certain, the preponderating opinion of both sides of the House. I desire to say on behalf of my friends here, in the first place, that in our view it is undesirable that the House should pass a resolution declaring that a breach of privilege has been committed and then do nothing-more. Such an academic declaration of breach of privilege is a mere brutum fulmen, whereas if the offence is sufficiently grave the House should be prepared to take the logical and consequential action. Next, as regards this particular case, I do not at all agree that because of the rising of the House this summoning of the offender to the bar to give an apology and to receive the admonition of the Speaker is an idle-ceremony; it is in some sense a punishment of the offence and it may be an effective deterrent against repetition.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: With great diffidence I wish to point out that there is the possibility of the House being placed in a very embarrassing position to-morrow. If the editor makes an apology, that will be all very well, but suppose instead of doing that he should make a highly impertinent speech from the bar, what will the House do then? [Cries of "Oh! Oh!"] It seems to me the House would be placed in a position of difficulty. At an earlier-period of the session the House might reply with a term of imprisonment, but to-morrow the House would be absolutely helpless. [Cries of "No, no," "You can fine him."] By the law of the land any order of the House for imprisonment comes to an end with the prorogation. ["Fine."] I do not know that the House can have recourse to earlier forms of punishment as applicable, but I find that the House has formerly taken a course dignified and exceedingly effective, and which, I think, would meet the present case, by directing a prosecution for libel. There is a precedent, not a very recent one, for the House has generally adopted the other alternative, but in 1701 there is the record of the House having directed the Attorney General to prosecute William Fuller, who was convicted on a charge of having accused Members of receiving money as bribes from

  977
  France.† This, it appears to me, would be a much more effective remedy for what, no doubt, is a gross and seditious libel, calculated to bring the House of Commons into contempt, and impugning the probity of its Members. I therefore suggest that a prosecution should be directed, not troubling the editor to appear at the bar. ["Oh! oh!"]
  MR. DILLON: May I be permitted in a very words few to point out that what the noble Lord has said is hardly germane to the discussion. If the editor should to-morrow refuse to apologise, and should insult the House, it will then be for the House to consider what course should be taken. It is absurd and a waste of time to discuss what the House would proceed to do in a very unlikely eventuality. What we now have to do is to pursue the course pointed out by precedents; what we would do should the editor prove contumacious can be discussed to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Youthful Offenders Bill; Factory and Workshops Acts Amendment and Consolidation Bill: National Gallery (Purchase of Adjacent Land) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill: with Amendments.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Railway Bill [Lords]; Harrogate Corporation Bill [Lords]: Rugby Water and Improvement Bill [Lords]: without amendment.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Lords' Amendments, to be considered to-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 295.]
  † A short account of this business (taken from Ralph's History) is given in "The Parliamentary History," Vol. v., page 1336. Fuller's conduct was not voted a breach of privilege; the House passed a resolution declaring him to be "a cheat, a false accuser, and an incorrigible rogue," and Mr. Attorney General was ordered to prosecute him "for his said offences." In the Parliamentary Debates, First Series, Vol. xvi., page 14****, is a speech by Sir Francis Burdett, in which the whole subject of Privilege is elaborately and learnedly examined. "The groundwork of all the privileges of this House" is traced to a law of Canute!—ED.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    SOUTH AFRICA—CONDUCT OF THE WAR: PRESENT SITUATION; RECENT PROCLAMATIONS; CONCENTRATION CAMPS; CIVIL ADMINISTRATION, ETC.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have arrived at this, nearly the very last stage of the session, and have a right to demand from His Majesty's Government a statement in a distinct and official manner as to the position in regard to the unhappy war which has now been waged for nearly two years. Of that we have received at the end of the two successive sessions different accounts. In July or August, 1899, we received from the Government the most hopeful representation in reference to the anticipations of war. We were then assured confidently that there was a great probability that war would be avoided, but that view of the case has unfortunately turned out to be entirely unfounded. What was the account the Government gave us at the end of the session of 1900? They told us that the war was all but over, and that within a very few weeks of that time the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa would return to England. Upon that the Government appealed to the country, as the authors of a successful war which had come to an end. That was the next stage of the announcements we have received. But no sooner was the Election over than we were told that great reinforcements were necessary for this war, which had practically come to an end, and since that time, for some ten months, the war has been going on with varying fortunes, sometimes with apparent success, sometimes with apparent failure. We get from time to time in the newspapers certain scraps of information, but no connected account of what the course of the war is. We get short telegrams, naturally from the British side, from Lord Kitchener, but on the other side we get no accounts at all. What we want to know, however, is what is the situation of both the belligerent parties. I presume the Com-

    979
    mander-in-Chief in South Africa has formed some opinion as to what is the condition of the enemy to which he is opposed; I suppose he has given full information to the Government, and that they have formed some judgment as to what are the prospects of the war and what is its actual condition.
    At present we do not even know how many men we have engaged there, we do not know what is the conjecture on the part even of the Commander-in-Chief and High Commissioner as to the forces to which we are opposed. All that we know is that we have an enormous force in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, in Natal, and in Cape Colony, and that they are still liable from time to time to be occupied and attacked by the enemy. We read of blockhouses being taken, of engagements sometimes adverse to our own forces, we know that large numbers of men have been killed, and wounded, and lost through disease, and we know also that we are spending about £5,000,000 a month on the war which at the end of last session was declared to be at an end. All these are circumstances on which we are entitled to some fuller information than we have yet received, and we ought not at the conclusion of this session, when Parliament can no longer have any means of obtaining knowledge or any control of the matter, to go away without having some more definite account of the condition of the war and its prospects than we have yet received. That is the demand which we ought to press, and all the more because we are apparently in the presence of a new policy. For, unless we are mistaken in all the reports that have reached us through the press, the hope of victory by military operations seems to have been given up in despair, and we are to enter upon a new policy. I hope it is not the policy which the Colonial Secretary the other day dealt with, a most dangerous policy, I thought—I mean the policy of employing savage races and native forces. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman indicated that that was the policy of the Government in South Africa; I hope not, but he made a sort of general defence, as I understood, of the employment of savages in warfare. A greater
    980
    crime than warfare of that description it is impossible to describe. Of all that is recorded against this country in the unhappy war with the people of America at the end of the eighteenth century none left such a stain upon the British name as that. I hope, if there is any question of employing savages in warfare between white races such as that in which we are now engaged that the language of Lord Chatham will be remembered. He said—
    "My Lords, who is the man that, in addition to these disgraces and mischiefs to our Army, has dared to authorise, and to associate with our arms, the tomahawk and sealping-knife of the savage, to call into civilised alliance the wild and inhuman savage of the woods, to delegate to the merciless Indian the defence of disputed rights, and to wage the horrors of his barbarous war against our brethren? My Lords, these enormities cry aloud to us to redress and avenge them. Unless thoroughly done away with it will be a stain on the national character; it is a violation of the Constitution; I believe it is against law."
    I do not wish to be understood as charging or even suggesting that this is the policy which the Government contemplate. But it is perfectly certain that in the press of this country it has been and is advocated. Language was used not many days ago by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that he saw no reason why native races should not be employed for this purpose, which, I hope, will be entirely disavowed. I trust that any suggestion of the kind will be absolutely repudiated. But there is a policy which we know is being adopted—the policy of proclamation, and it is apparently the one which is to take the place of military operations, which according to all accounts have not been largely successful recently in South Africa. What is the object of reverting to this policy of proclamation, which has not been a happy chapter in this war? We have had forty-one of these proclamations, many of them illegal, all of them futile, and most of them so impolitic that, even if they were legal, they had to be withdrawn. One of the early proclamations was that—
    "all the inhabitants of the Orange River Colony after 14 days who shall be found in arms shall be liable to be dealt with as rebels and to suffer in person and property accordingly."
    That was to be a sort of closure of the war—on a particular date the guillotine

    981
    was to descend. It was a declaration inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the laws and customs of war. In June, 1900, you declared that every man found in arms was a rebel, and as such was liable to the death penalty. Almost immediately after that proclamation was issued it had to be withdrawn, and another proclamation was issued—
    "that the burghers of the Orange State who were attached to some commando prior to the annexation, and who had been continually in arms against Her Majesty's Government since, should be regarded as prisoners of war."
    They always were prisoners of war and not rebels at all, and therefore that proclamation had to be set aside. Then there was the farm-burning proclamation—the houses and farms in the vicinity of the place where the damage was done were to be destroyed, and the residents in the neighbourhood dealt with under martial law. That was practically revoked by the Order of November 18th. Another proclamation stated that all burghers who had not taken the oath in districts occupied by His Majesty's forces should be regarded as prisoners of war. Men who had never taken arms at all were to be regarded as prisoners of war. That was the most astounding statement, I suppose, ever put into any proclamation. The proclamation further stated—
    "that all buildings and structures in which scouts or other forces of the enemy are harboured would be liable to be razed to the ground."
    That is apart from the farm-burning proclamation. That means probably the whole of the houses of the Dutch population in these countries. All these proclamations came to nothing at all—there was not even an attempt to put them into operation. It was found to be impossible either in law or policy to defend them; it was shown what a very unwise thing it is in carrying on a contest of this kind to issue such bruta fulmina, which those who issued them did not attempt to enforce, and to which those against whom they were issued paid no attention. That is the history practically of your forty-one proclamations.
    Then you perceived that the only thing to do was to betake yourselves, in order to terminate the war, to those military operations which have been con- 982
    Ducted undoubtedly with great skill and effect by Lord Kitchener. But now we are reverting again to the policy of proclamation, and we wish that the Government should give us some reason for going back to a course of proceedings which in the past has proved neither creditable nor effective. We have now had a new proclamation. The scope of it is to deprive, on a particular date, those who continue resistance of the rights which belong to belligerents. We have to ask ourselves and to ask the Government whether or not the condition of the contest justifies such action. If a man who has belligerent rights is captured in war, you cannot banish him. As soon as peace is effected you must return him to his own country, just as he was before. Therefore, this proclamation can only be defended on the ground that you have the right to deprive these men of the privileges belonging to them as lawful belligerents, and if there does not exist a condition of things to justify such action; the proclamation is not justifiable. The question of belligerent rights is of the gravest international importance. It is not a mere matter between you and the Boers in South Africa alone. It affects the whole of what I may call the morale of war. There has been in successive centuries and generations a code which has been gradually adopted to mitigate the ferocity of war, and which gives to those engaged in war certain rights, and which secures them when beaten or captured certain forms of protection which are known under the name of belligerent rights. Therefore this is a matter not to be lightly dealt with. It is a matter upon which there has been the most careful and anxious consideration in recent years. It has been debated by the highest authorities with the greatest ability. The Government of Russia invited the Powers to meet in 1874 and 1875 to draw up a code of the rules and customs of war. Anybody who wishes really to get to the bottom of this matter should read the account in the Blue-book containing the whole of the discussions and proposals that were made and the manner in which they were treated by the Powers of Europe, who were represented at that conference. Russia propounded certain articles upon the subject; and it very early became apparent in the discussion of these articles at the Con-

    983
    ference of the Powers that the views entertained by great military Powers, like Russia, Germany, and, more or less, France, were entirely adverse to the views held by the smaller and weaker Powers, who had not the same great armies and organisation as were possessed by such Powers as Russia and Germany, and the consequence was that there arose a very great conflict of opinion in that conference. I cannot weary the House by going into the details at any length, though I think that they are matters of very great importance. But there are some things which I cannot leave unmentioned, impressed as I am with the enormous importance of the question of belligerent rights, which are called in question by this proclamation. As I said just now, the smaller and weaker Powers were opposed to the form of the resolutions which were put forward by the Russian Government. They felt that they were entirely on the side of great battalions, and that the smaller Powers, such as Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Holland, who had not great armies, would be unjustly oppressed if they were adopted. Let me give an example of one of these rules which is very much to the purpose in the matter involved in this proclamation. One of the proposals was materially altered in the conference in consequence of the opposition of these Powers. The original proposal of the Russian Government ran—
    "Individuals belonging to the population of a country in which the enemy's power is already established who shall rise in arms against them may be handed over to justice, and are not to be regarded as prisoners of war."
    In my opinion that is exactly the situation which is contemplated by the recent proclamation. That proposal was rejected by the conference, and the following was substituted in its place—
    "The population of a locality which is not yet occupied by the enemy and which takes up arms for the defence of its country is to be considered as belligerent, and if it is made prisoner is to be treated as prisoner of war."
    That was a vindication of the rights of the weaker independent Powers, who remonstrated against the original pro posal. The representative of Switzer land speaking for a country which had fought in vindication of its liberty—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What date is it?
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is
    984
    1874. The representative of Switzerland pointed out how the entire population of his country rose to defend their independence. He said—
    "that if the history of Switzerland be referred to, it will be seen that the entire population of valleys, unorganised and under no chief, rose en masse. That is a patriotic sentiment which cannot be forbidden. The men who defend their country are not brigands. The Swiss would revolt at such a hypothesis."
    That was the position taken up by what I may call the small, free, independent countries who have not at their disposal great battalions. There were other modifications in the proposals of Russia. One which was very important describes the rights of belligerents to be enjoyed, not only by the Regular Army, but by the Militia and Volunteers. I ask the attention of the House to the definition of the rights of men who do not belong to the Regular Army, and to the conditions which they must fulfil in order to enjoy and maintain belligerent rights. The first condition was that these independent bodies should have at their head someone responsible for his subordinates. It was proposed that they should at the same time be subject to orders from head quarters. That last sentence was struck out because it held to be sufficient if those independent bodies, not acting under authority from any single head, but acting under persons responsible for their subordinates, such as the mayor of a town or other reputable person. Other conditions were that they should have some distinguishing badge, recognisable at a distance; that they should carry arms openly; and that in their operations they should conform to the laws and customs of war. On the proposal of Russia it was agreed that armed bands not complying with these conditions were not to be regarded as possessing the rights of belligerents, and in case of capture were to be proceeded against judicially. The proposal of your proclamation is exactly the proposal which was struck out by the Russian Government in consequence of the general disapproval of it by the Powers of Europe. If you are to proceed against the men in arms in South Africa judicially, how can you banish them by proclamation? You are dealing with belligerents or you are not dealing with belligerents. If you are dealing with belligerents you have no right to banish them. If they

    985
    are not belligerents you cannot by proclamation banish them. You must proceed against them by some law.
    I should like to call the attention of the House to the despatch of Lord Derby, in the Government of Lord Beaconsfield, dated 20th January, 1875, declaring how the British Government meant to deal with these disputed questions as between the Great Powers and the smaller Powers. Lord Derby wrote—
    "The careful consideration of the whole matter has convinced Her Majesty's Government that it is their duty firmly to repudiate on the part of Great Britain and her allies in any future war any proposals for altering the principles of international law upon which Her Majesty's Government has hitherto acted, and above all to be a party to any agreement the effect of which would be to facilitate aggressive wars and to paralyse the resistance of an invaded people."
    What characteristic is there which the history of this country displays and of which we are more proud than that under the Administration of Lord Palmerston and other Administrations the sympathies of this country have been with the weaker side? In the struggles of Italy, in the struggles of Belgium, in the struggle of the Poles and of Hungary, the feelings and sympathies of this country have been with the weaker side. Now, Sir, I come to the conference at The Hague. There among other questions were considered the laws and customs of war in a revised shape, founded on the original Russian proposals, and there, with considerable modifications, they received a certain assent. I am happy to say that the British representative, Sir John Ardagh, speaking in the same language and acting in the same direction as Lord Derby, proposed—
    "That nothing should be considered as tending to diminish the rights which belong to the population of an invaded country to oppose the most energetic resistance to the invader by every legitimate means."
    That proposal was not included in the protocol, because there was a general opinion that that was a sentiment of which all the Powers approved. As a Government we did not become parties to the convention, but what was agreed upon by most of the Powers was this, that the rights and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to Militia and Volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions—namely, that they are commanded by a person responsible for their conduct, that they have a fixed distinction recognisable at a distance.
    986
    that they carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and usages of war. That is the effect of the amended resolution which came out of the conference, and that was followed by a second article, which included the population of a territory which has not been occupied who on the enemy's approach have taken up arms to resist and repel the invading troops without having had time to organise themselves according to Article 1.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): What about occupation?
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am coming to occupation directly, and there the question comes more nearly home. The question is, "What is the occupation which decides the rights as belligerents of the other side?" Now, Sir, I wish to call attention to the "Manual of Military Law," published in 1899 as instructions to Her Majesty's officers and men. There military occupation is most accurately defined. Here we find what military occupation on the part of an invader is—
    "An invader is stated to be in military occupation of such part of a country as is wholly abandoned by the forces of the enemy."
    Can you predicate that of any part of South Africa at the present moment? It goes on—
    "The occupation must be real and not nominal. A paper occupation is infinitely more objectionable in its character and effects than a paper blockade."
    A paper blockade is a partial blockade of a portion of a coast when you cannot blockade the whole. The manual goes on to state that—
    "The true test of military occupation is exclusive possession."
    Have you at this moment exclusive possession of the Transvaal or the Orange River Colony? I may, indeed, ask the same question even of Cape Colony.—
    "For example"—
    proceeds the manual—
    "the reduction of a fortress which dominates the surrounding country gives military possession of the dominated country, but not of any other fortress which hag not submitted."
    Is that a description you can apply to the occupation of these provinces? Then we are told that—
    "Military occupation ceases as soon as the forces of the invader retreat or advance in such a manner as to loosen their hold on the occupied territory."
    Therefore, there clearly can only be

    987
    military occupation of territory where your military forces are operating for the time, and any part which your military forces do not effectively occupy at the time is not in your occupation, and until you have made your occupation effective over every part of an enemy's territory you cannot assert that you are entitled to deny belligerent rights to those to whom you are opposed. You cannot treat the inhabitants as rebels, and until peace is concluded or you have a complete and effective military occupation of the whole territory your proclamation of annexation is nothing but a paper annexation. So much for occupation. What does this British manual say with regard to the character that the men in arms against you must possess in order to exercise and enjoy belligerent rights? It says that the first duty of a citizen is to defend his country, but this defence must be conducted according to the usages and customs of war. It then states the rules which apply to countries which have regular armies and regular organisations, and proceeds to say that—
    "No rule can be laid down which is not subject to great exceptions. For example, the usages and customs of war do not justify a commander in putting to death or even punishing the inhabitants of a town after the attack has ceased on the ground that they fought against him without uniform or distinctive mark as all the inhabitants of a town may be considered as legitimate enemies until the town is taken. Similarly a population which rises en masse in a country not occupied by the enemy are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and not as marauders."
    These are the rules with regard to occupation. Unless the country is occupied totally and in every part in the military and exclusive sense, you are not entitled to treat as marauders the men still in arms in defence of their own country. Then, again, it is stated in this manual that—
    "Where the regular government of a country has been overthrown by civil tumult the absence of a recognised Government having the power to make peace would not in itself disentitle organised bodies of men, clearly distinguishable as foes, fighting in accordance with the customs of war to be treated when captured as prisoners of war."
    Nothing can be more clear than these instructions, which are printed and published for the instruction of the British Army, and I cannot help thinking that it is for that reason that this proclamation was not recommended by Lord Kitchener. How did this pro-
    988
    clamation originate? It is not the proclamation of the High Commissioner or of the Commander-in-Chief in the field. It is not a proclamation which suggested itself to His Majesty's Government. I venture to affirm that this proclamation, which is an entire innovation in the laws and customs of war, is an emanation from the brains of the Ministers of Natal. We have not the smallest indication that His Majesty's Government suggested it or that Lord Kitchener was consulted by them on the matter. It comes from Natal. It is founded not upon the fact that the war is over, but upon the statement of the Ministers of Natal on 25th July, 1901. They said—
    "There is a protracted continuance of hostilities. The colony is still subjected to the censorship and to martial law."
    and then they proceed to recommend, first of all, that the cost of the maintenance of all women and children should be chargeable against the immovable property of burghers in the field, and that the leaders should be informed that unless they and their commandoes surrendered by a date specified they would be banished from South Africa for life. That is the idea which sprung out of the heads of the Ministers of Natal. They sent it home. We have no account of any opinion given upon it by Lord Kitchener, and I should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether the idea was communicated to Lord Kitchener before the proclamation was drawn up; and, if so, whether he will give the House Lord Kitchener's opinion on it; for I find that within five days the proclamation was drafted on the scheme of the Ministers of Natal and sent out to Lord Kitchener with directions to him to publish it. And in such a hurry was it drawn that those at home had not taken time to ascertain the facts. When it was necessary to consider the preamble, to show how complete is their occupation, they said His Majesty's Government is in complete possession of the Treasury of the Boers. Of course everybody knows that they never were in possession of the Treasury, and a week afterwards they found this out, and telegraphed out to correct that by striking the word "Treasury" out of the proclamation. Then it was necessary to telegraph out to correct the grammar of the proclamation. This is the character of the proclamation which

    989
    endeavours to lay upon an elaborate preamble the foundation for what I say is a denial of belligerent rights to the Boers who are still remaining in arms. They say they are in complete possession of the seat of government of both the aforesaid Republics—that is true—of the Treasury—that is not true—of their public offices and machinery of administration, as well as the principal towns and the whole of the railway line. But that is only a partial, and a very partial, occupation. I would venture to say, if the accounts one reads in the newspapers are true, that these countries are not in complete and effective military occupation at all, and that in future they will be less militarily occupied than before. I think we have a right to know what is the expectation and the policy of the Government in this matter. We are told by people who pretend to know—I have seen a confident statement in the press—that Lord Kitchener is to return on a definite date, and that a very large number of troops are to be brought home. We ought to know whether that is true or not. If, out of these 200,000 men, a large number of men are to be withdrawn, and if the present Commander-in-Chief is to leave, as the last one did, on the assumption that the war is practically over, we ought to be informed of that change of policy. But what I call attention to is this—that the preamble of this proclamation lays no foundation whatever for the penalties which it professes to impose. It proceeds to say that—
    "the burghers are devoid of regular military organisation, and are therefore unable to carry-on regular warfare, or to offer organised resistance."
    What do you mean by organised resistance? So far as we know, these commandos that still exist in these countries fulfil the conditions that I have read—either those proposed at Brussels or those agreed to at The Hague, or those defined in the Manual of Instructions. "They are not under the command of responsible men." They are under the command of De Wet, Botha, Delarey, and many others, and are therefore under the command of responsible persons, although they may not be acting from any single centre. Therefore this allegation is not, in my judgment, an allegation upon which to establish the authority which enables you to deny to these
    990
    men, when you have conquered and captured them in war, belligerent rights. It proceeds—
    "And whereas it is just to proceed against those still resisting, and especially against those persons who, being in possession of authority, are responsible for the continuance of the present state of lawlessness, and are instigating their fellow-burghers to continue their hostilities."
    The allegation apparently is that these men are marauders, that they are not acting under authority, and that there is nobody who is responsible for their actions. But your own proclamation denies that; it points out that they are persons acting under the guidance of persons in authority, that there are persons in authority who are still conducting this conflict. These are the persons against whom your penalties are directed—"Commandants, field-cornets, and leaders of armed bands." It is proved in your own proclamation that these are organised bodies within the definition I have read to you, which recognises that they are entitled to belligerent rights. A body is organised whether it consists of 10,000 or 100 men, so long as they are acting according to the rules and customs of war and under the leadership of responsible men, and you have laid no foundation for the proceedings for which this proclamation is issued.
    Let me ask here what it is you expect to gain by these penalties which you proclaim in this document? You say that these leaders are to be banished. Again, I must ask, how do you propose to banish them—under what authority and in what capacity? If they are prisoners of war who have been captured while fighting for the defence of their own country there is no authority left to you at all—they are entitled to return to their own country. If you choose to keep these countries under martial law you may expel them and do what you like with them. Is that your scheme? Are you going to keep these countries, when the war is over, under martial law in order that you may Danish these men who are respected and regarded by their fellow-countrymen? You cannot banish them except by some process of law. Are you going to indict them for treason? Conceive an indictment against General Botha for treason for breach of his allegiance to

    991
    the British Crown. It is absurd on the face of it. There is no authority for doing such a thing at all. You might as well induct ex-President Kruger as a British subject and a rebel. That is what I call a paper occupation, and a mere paper annexation does not make traitors of all these men who were in arms, who are in arms, and have been in arms ever since the annexation. In the case of Lord Durham there was an attempt—it absolutely failed—to establish a right to banish men who unquestionably were rebels without legal proceedings and without legal indictment. Is that the proceeding you are going to take against the leaders—Botha, De Wet, Delarey? But against the other men—the common herd—you are going to invent a most extraordinary proceeding. However it entered into the heads of the Ministers of Natal to adopt such a policy I cannot conceive. It amounts to a bill for board and lodging against the men whom you capture in war for taking care of their wives and families whom you have carried off against their will. If ever there was a case of nec cauponantes bellum, sed belligerantes it is this, and certainly it would have encouraged Napoleon, if he were alive, to level against us the taunt, "a nation of shopkeepers." In what capacity are you going to charge them? If, as I contend, these men are entitled to belligerent rights, you cannot charge them for your board and lodging at St. Helena and Ceylon. Why should you charge them for keeping their wives and families in prison for your own convenience or their protection in camps of concentration? It seems to me to be an utterly unreasonable proposal, and one which is impolitic and unwise in the highest degree. It is said the war is coming to a condition in which you may treat it as no war at all. Is that true? Just test it in one way. The refugees at the Cape are extremely anxious to return to Johannesburg and Pretoria; they cannot be allowed to go back because you cannot ensure them sufficient food, for the whole of the railways, which you say you are in possession of, are required for carrying supplies for your own army. That is a very partial occupation. We are told that the country is being scoured. It is being scoured at a particular part,
    992
    but the moment you march your troops away that part is reoccupied by the enemy. I have come to the conclusion that there is no military feature in the situation which justifies the refusal of the rights of war to the Boers now in arms. I believe every man in this House and country believes this war should be brought to the earliest possible conclusion, and if I thought this proclamation would have any effect in that direction I should look at it with very different eyes. But I do not believe anything of the kind. I believe the proclamation will irritate without being effectual, that it will not frighten into submission the men against whom it is directed. It is founded upon principles which, I believe, are not consistent with the laws and customs of war as they have been understood in modern times and by civilised nations. It will exasperate your opponents without helping you to subdue them. It will have the effect, I am quite sure, abroad of leading to still greater exasperation of feeling against this country if they can bring against us the charge that, in order to overpower these people, we have resorted to methods which do not belong to legitimate warfare. For these reasons I hope this proclamation may be allowed to sink into abeyance, and that we shall hear no more of it for the future.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have listened to the speech which has been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, but I confess that at its close I am quite unable to conceive what could have been his object in making it at this period. I can judge of its effect, but I hannot understand what view the right con. Gentleman took of the advantage of such a disquisition. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to show that the action of His Majesty's Government is absurd, impracticable, illegal, futile, illegitimate, contrary to the practices of civilised warfare, contrary to the declarations of other civilised States, and, of course, to the extent to which he is successful he does undoubtedly weaken the hands of His Majesty's Government, and he does provoke and confirm that prejudice which already exists in the minds of foreign nations with regard to our proceedings. I quite understand the position of the

    993
    right hon. Gentleman, that this war was an unjust war into which we ought never to have entered, but I do not understand why, under those circumstances, when he says his one desire is to see it brought to a peaceful conclusion, he is continually interposing and intervening with language and arguments which, if they mean anything and have any effect at all, will certainly have a tendency to prolong the war. The right hon. Gentleman has demanded a statement with regard to the military situation. He seems to have forgotten that only a few days ago a similar and very natural request was made to me by the Leader of the Opposition, and that I then gave to the House all the information it was possible for me to give. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to induce me to make again prophecies such as, he says, we have made in the past and have invariably proved untrue, I decline altogether to be led to do so. It is quite true that the anticipations of everybody who has spoken with regard to this war have not been fulfilled as we should have wished them to be. Under those circumstances, I am not rash enough to indulge in further prophecies, but I stated no later than Friday week all we knew of the present position and the grounds for anticipating that it would be within the power of the Commander-in-Chief to send home a considerable number of troops at the termination of the winter campaign.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me with regard to a report or statement which, I believe, appears in the newspapers this morning to the effect that Lord Kitchener is coming home on September 15th. and that a large number of troops are also coming home with him. I have nothing to add to what I have said before with regard to the troops. With regard to Lord Kitchener, the statement is absolutely without foundation. The right hon. Gentleman complains that we give so little information. I have explained previously that we give to the House everything we ourselves receive. To complain of those who furnish us with information would, I think, be extremely unfair, for when you come to consider the present state of hostilities in South Africa and the size of the country you will see that it is absolutely impos-
    994
    sible to give a connected account of a series of isolated skirmishes and continuous pursuit by our troops of ever-evading Boer commandos. The general result is sufficiently clearly stated in the weekly returns that are made of the net consequence of the operations which are being pursued. Last week Lord Kitchener was able to announce that the efforts of his force had been more successful than in any previous week, though that was not anticipated, because, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, we had already taken so many prisoners that it was to be expected that the number captured each week would gradually lessen. I shall come later to what, in my opinion, has had that very satisfactory effect.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to speak about a new policy which had been adopted, and he indicated that the policy was somehow or other connected with the employment of natives. Nothing of that kind has been said from this bench. I stated distinctly on a previous occasion that the policy of His Majesty's Government was the policy which they have declared from the first—not to employ native troops for offensive purposes in this war—and the reason, of course, is on the surface; I need not repeat it. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to denounce a statement which I had made with regard to our perfect freedom to employ natives in any future war, and he talked about the days of Chatham and the employment of Indians in the war with America. It is quite true that Chatham denounced, perhaps on good grounds, the employment of Indians in the American War, but certainly, if I am to pay attention to that example. I should be rather careful of what I said of the employment of natives, lest, like Chatham, I should find myself a few years afterwards employing them in a war, as was done in the case of the Seven Years War and when we were fighting the French in Canada.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The American War was after the Seven Years War.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is perfectly true; my history is at fault. It is perfectly certain that the employment of Indians by civilised Government

    995
    was common on both sides in those days. What I was going to say was this. The employment of natives then was on a scale and under conditions which certainly no civilised nation would for a moment consent to at the present time. The Indians were employed under their own chiefs; they exercised all their own barbarous customs, and they were properly described by the right hon. Gentleman as savages. But the right hon. Gentleman would not, I imagine, for one moment apply the description to our Indian troops.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say they were.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We have had Indian troops in China; we have had Indian troops side by side with the troops of four or five civilised nations, and let me say they did not prove themselves the least inferior to the troops of those civilised nations.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say they were.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Under these circumstances, why does the right hon. Gentleman complain of my statement that we consider our hands to be free in any future war, whether with a civilised nation or not, to employ native troops, if we can employ them under conditions in which we are certain that they are under civilised control? That is the statement I made on a previous occasion, and I adhere to it. I am not going to be frightened from it by the denunciations, on insufficient grounds, of the right hon. Gentleman. These after all were only hors-d' æuvre. The long speech of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted almost entirely to the proclamation which has just been issued. With regard to that proclamation, he began by alluding to his own satisfaction that we had issued a number of other proclamations, all of which had been absolutely futile. I deny absolutely that those proclamations have been futile, or that any of them have been futile, or that there is a single one of them which cannot be said to have produced, at all events to some extent, the effect which it was desired to produce. The best answer that I can give to the right hon.
    996
    Gentleman consists in this. At the present time we have as prisoners or as surrendered more than 35,000 of the enemy in our hands. I attribute, I must say, a good number of those captures, and still more of those surrenders, to the effect of those proclamations which the right hon. Gentleman, on very insufficient evidence, declares to have been entirely futile.
    Then he says this proclamation deprives, the enemy of the rights of belligerents. It does nothing of the kind. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to lay down, as a result of all this reading of books on military law and the proceedings of conferences in Belgium and at The Hague that if you go to war with a country and conquer that country you have no power to prevent the return there of anybody you please—that it is a belligerent right of everybody who has fought against you to return to that country? The proposition is perjectly absurd. In this case these colonies—the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies—are part of His Majesty's dominions. We have a right to make a law in those colonies, as we have a right to make a law here if we choose to banish, to expel from the country any persons whose presence there we may consider to be undesirable, and all we have done by the proclamation is to warn certain persons that if they do not surrender by 15th September those proceedings will be taken against them. We shall prohibit their return and they will be expelled from South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the origin of the proclamation. He says it was not a proclamation suggested to us by Lord Kitchener or Lord Milner, or a proclamation which entered into our own brain, but was the product of the ingenuity of the Ministers of Natal. It that had been true I should not have thought the worse of it on that account. At any rate the Ministers of Natal have a right to be heard in this matter. Their interests in it are more direct than those of the right hon. Gentleman, and they are most likely to know the means which are best to conduce to the peace which he and they desire.
    The right hon. Gentleman is not of course aware of all the circumstances of the case, and perhaps it would be satisfactory to him if I state that the

    997
    right hon. Gentleman is apparently mistaken in what he imagines has taken place. This proclamation, with one exception, was in print and approved by the Cabinet before we received the suggestion of the Ministers of Natal. Therefore, although that is the first document which appears in the papers, it is only printed as showing the feeling of the colonies on the subject. But it does happen that the suggestion arose almost contemporaneously in the minds of the Ministers of Natal and the Government. I say with one exception, which is a new one made by the Ministers in Natal, that the cost of keeping the women and children in the camps should be made a charge on the burghers. I think the suggestion went further than the one we adopted, because it seemed to be that the charge should be on the whole of the burghers still in the field, whereas we have put it as a charge only on those to whom the families belong. The right hon. Gentleman is pleased to be humorous at the expense of this suggestion which we have now adopted, and for which we are Sully responsible. I confess I do not share his view. The principal object of this proclamation is to bring about the termination of the war and the surrender of those still in the field. One cause of the prolongation of the war is the fact that the burghers may continue to make war with little risk to themselves and no risk whatever to their families. We are taking care of their families and providing for them in a much better way than they were ever provided for before, and meanwhile their husbands and brothers are in the field fighting against us, certain that no loss whatever will result to them. If we can by some small penalty bring home to them that they cannot continue this without some pecuniary loss, I think we shall have done a very important thing. I will say incidentally that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these people in the camps are practically our prisoners is not strictly accurate. It is true there is a certain amount of supervision over them, but that supervision is so loose that I am informed by good authority that there would be no difficulty in their escaping if they really had any desire to do so. They do not complain, but such complaints as we hear are made for them
    998
    and not by them. I have authority for the statement that those Boers who are confined, with a few exceptions, express themselves upon all occasions to those who visit them as satisfied that everything has been done that can be done to treat them fairly under the circumstances.
    I come back again to the legal views of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to belligerent rights. I have explained that that is entirely irrelevant to the proposal to banish certain persons as being undesirable inhabitants of our territory. We are only dealing with countries which we have made our own by conquest, and in which we have a right to make whatever laws we please, and if we make a law to expel certain persons from the country because we consider them undesirable, we have a right to do so. It has been done again and again by civilised Powers. What was done by the Germans in Alsace-Lorraine? They gave an option to the French inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance or leave the country. A great many refused to take the oath, and were permanently exiled. What the Germans had a right to do we have an equal right to do in the case of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal. But the right hon. Gentleman went much further than that. What we understand by the right of a belligerent is not a right to return to his country unless it remains under his Government, and not if it is annexed. What we understand by belligerent rights is that a belligerent's personal property will not be confiscated, and he will not be executed except for conduct contrary to the usages of war. So long as these people are entitled to belligerent rights, we shall interpret those rights as the right hon. Gentleman does. But he must admit there is a line between belligerents and these banditti guerillas, who are not entitled to belligerent rights.
    There must come a point when that is the case. It has come in every war which was ever conducted. It came in the civil war in the United States, and in the Franco-German War. What was the action of the Germans with regard to the franc tireurs? It was to declare that they refused to recognise as belligerents men who were in arms against them, firing at their soldiers from

    999
    comparatively safe positions, and next day were peaceful villagers working at their various industries. I do not say that position has yet arrived in the case of the South African colonies, but it may arise, and if it does we reserve to ourselves the rights exercised by other civilised nations under similar circumstances. Although it has not arrived, there have been unquestionably acts done by the bands now in the field against us which come at all events near to the dividing line which the right hon. Gentleman admits must one day be established between the two classes of fighting men. I noticed that all the passages which the right hon. Gentleman read out of military law (including quotations from a distinguished foreigner) on the subject state that one of the conditions which justifies a man in claiming belligerent rights is that he should have a distinguishing mark or badge. That the Boers have never had, although I do not attach much importance to that so long as they were moving in large bodies, but in no organised fashion. But if split up, as they are, into bands of two and three, sneaking in between our posts to commit acts of violence and outrage, and, as I say, of murder, it becomes of importance. If that sort of thing occurs we may have reached the dividing line contemplated evidently by the great authorities which the right hon. Gentleman quoted.
    To whom of all the great nations of the world would he go if he wanted an example of honourable treatment of an honourable foe? I imagine he would go in the first instance to the United States. I am now going back to what the United States did in the civil war forty years ago. Everyone who knows anything about it and, as I have, talked to the principal actors in the war, knows that in what they believed to be the interests of humanity, and to bring the conflict to the earliest possible conclusion, they took steps against belligerents and persons not belligerents which exceeded in hardship anything we have done in this war. Talk of farm-burning! Farm-burning in South Africa was trivial to the devastation of an enormous tract of country by General Sherman in his march through Georgia. I have talked to General Sherman, and he justified it on the ground I have stated—that it was
    1000
    greater humanity to make the war intolerable, that it should be speedily brought to an end. I am not going into this great controversy. What happened in the case of the Philippines? I take it because it has many points of resemblance with the war in which we have been engaged. The Filippinos are spread over a large country which is extremely difficult, although for other reasons than the Transvaal, and after the first battles the Americans were never able to come across anything like an organised force, and the war degenerated into a guerilla war, which lasted a little over two years, and now, I hope, has been brought to a final conclusion. But in November, 1899, the year before the termination of the war. General McArthur wrote (and if anyone will substitute "South Africa" in this passage for the Philippines they will see the analogy)—
    "The so-called Philippine Republic is destroyed. The colony is a desert. The President of the so-called Republic is a fugitive and all his Cabinet officers except one, who is in my hands. The Executive department is entirely broken up. The generals are separated without any power of conference or concerted action. The authority under which the army was brought into the field no longer exists. The army itself as an organisation has disappeared as a' consequence of these facts, which are now on historical record. Men who professed to lead small bodies for guerilla warfare must act without even a shadow of authority from the de facto Government, and the operations from this time onwards will be the result of individual whim. In other words, the men who now try to continue the strife by individual action simply become leaders of banditti."
    Then General McArthur recommended that a proclamation should be issued (he has a higher opinion of proclamations, than the right hon. Gentleman) offering amnesty to all who surrendered within the stated time on the payment of thirty pesetas, who gave up a rifle, accompanying it with the emphatic declaration that after the date fixed the killing of American soldiers would be regarded as murder, and all persons concerned therein would be treated as murderers.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Was this acted upon?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. General McArthur was Commander-in-Chief.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is that your policy?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If this war degenerates into a war of banditti, if the actions are no longer the actions of belligerents, but the actions of individual brigands, yes, certainly. In doing so we shall be following the example of every civilised nation that has ever gone to war. Now the right hon. Gentleman asks in conclusion what we shall gain by the proclamation. It appears to me we cannot fail to gain by it; we must gain by it in one way or other. From what we know of the war, from reports nearly every prisoner has made to us, from correspondence published, and other correspondence which we can lay on the Table, all point to the fact that it is the action of the leaders of these men that is keeping these men in the field, and that the majority of them, at any rate, who are in the field would be glad if they could without sacrifice of pride come in. I think it is a very creditable feeling on their part. They are not, of course, except, perhaps, in a very few instances, compelled by violence to remain, but they do not like—and it is a very natural feeling—to be the first to surrender. It is the action of the late Transvaal Government, of Mr. Kruger and his friends in Holland, and the principal leaders of the Boer forces which is now continuing a war which they know, which they admit in every document passing between them which we have seen, is aimless and useless, except on the assumption that something may turn up to their advantage in the shape of foreign intervention or change of opinion in this country. They keep on the war solely, according to their own account, in the hope of foreign intervention or reaction here, and we know perfectly well how futile such expectations are. But, most unfortunately for the Boers, they are less educated as to the state of feeling here or on the Continent, and their leaders have deceived them over and over again, and a great part of their losses and the subsequent miseries they will suffer are due entirely to misapprehension of the situation. If we can bring home to these people that they personally will suffer by continuing longer in the field we may—and that is
    1002
    the greatest advantage we can hope for—we may so influence them as to bring about an immediate end of the war. That is worth trying. If we cannot influence a single leader it is still worth issuing a proclamation of this kind, which I hope will have a useful result But if it fails in that respect, at all events it will rid the Colony of men who have shown themselves by their action to be utterly irreconcilable, and who, if they remain, will be a continual source of difficulty. Any way you take it the proclamation must be a success; it will do good now by bringing the war to a close, or hereafter it will prevent a recrudescence of trouble.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Of all the extraordinary coincidences which I have ever heard the coincidence which led the Government to advise the issuing of this proclamation is the most extraordinary. I cannot understand what the account given to us of the origin of this proclamation really is. Was it, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies says, already in print here before it was suggested to the Government of Natal?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Then the right hon. Gentleman said there was a suggestion from the Government of Natal which was accepted.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I said that with one exception, to which I referred, the proclamation had been approved by the Government of Natal. The section which we accepted from the Government of Natal was the provision in respect to charging burghers with the cost of the maintenance of their families.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I will not press the point of this extraordinary coincidence, but it does strike me as most extraordinary. The reply of the Colonial Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire does not strike me as answering the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used. The Colonial Secretary instanced the case of Alsace as showing

    1003
    that you have the right to punish people who have been in arms against you. I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was no attempt in the case of Alsace to punish anybody until after there had been a treaty of peace conceding Alsace to the conquerors; and even then there was nothing in the nature of a real punishment, because what was done was to force people to adopt one or other nationality, and it was the indirect effect of the application of the military system that caused a virtual banishment. At all events the case of Alsace is no answer. What my right hon. friend argued very fully and fairly was that you have not at present a sufficient military occupation of these territories in South Africa to justify the issuing of a proclamation like this. Personally I am deeply concerned as to the military steps which have been taken by the Government, and I agree with my right hon. friend that there seems to be an attempt to substitute proclamations for victories in the field. It is upon this aspect of the military situation that I should like for a very few minutes to engage the attention of the House. Of course I do not know what is the belief in the mind of the Government as to the possibility of safely withdrawing from South Africa, as they propose, a very large proportion of the troops engaged there at present. My right hon. friend speaks of that as a suggestion, and he did not seem to think that it had been officially proclaimed as the policy of the Government; but when the Secretary of State for War had a difference of opinion a short time ago with a London newspaper, I understood him to say that one of the revelations of official secrets which that newspaper had made was the revelation of the intention of bringing home a very large proportion of the troops in South Africa.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Baronet will refer to what I said on behalf of the Government, he will find I did not say a very large proportion. That I should understand to mean something more than half. There is no intention of doing anything of that kind.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I understood the Secretary of State for War to complain of that as the revelation of an official secret, and I want to know what military steps the Government are taking, whether or not they are adequate to the situation, and whether they make up for the weakening of the military policy by the withdrawal of the troops which has been referred to. I do not know whether there are peace negotiations on foot, although I have heard rumours to that effect.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. friend is entitled to put a hypothesis, but if I do not intervene it may be taken to have some foundation in fact. There is no foundation for the rumour that peace negotiations of any kind are going on.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Then I want to know what is the military situation in Cape Colony at the present time. As regards the Transvaal and Orange River Colony the military situation has improved, but as regards Cape Colony I have good grounds for my statement that the military situation is less good than it was six months ago. I cannot but believe that the invasion of Cape Colony is bleeding South Africa to a degree almost inconceivable. It is the duty of the Government, and that is the feeling in the country, not to withdraw troops from South Africa without seeing that the character and quality of the troops remaining are such as to give probability of military success in Cape Colony. That I am unable to see. Is the military situation in the colony being met with the strenuous energy it requires? I believe it is not. Although the strength of the Boer forces in the late Transvaal Republic has considerably diminished lately, I do not believe that has been the case in Cape Colony. Letters from officers conducting military operations show the contrary. When the invasion took place in December mounted Boers traversed the Colony 500 miles in one direction, 450 miles in another, and almost reached the sea on both sides, and though it has been said that the invaders have been driven off, yet military operations continue in the

    1005
    districts reached by the Boers in December last.
    In the Calvinia district and in the Willowmore district, both to the south and west of Cape Town, the Boers are still close to the sea, and away from the railways are controlling the administration of the greater part of Cape Colony. Our general officers commanding in the field are continually forced to send reinforcements and supplies to posts practically kept in a state of siege by the Boers, and this has been going on since December last. My contention is that the Government ought to have known all this beforehand. They ought to have realised in December last what the situation in Cape Colony was, and they ought to have made preparations which they did not make to meet that situation. They were asked to send a large force of mounted men. Lord Kitchener asked for a large force of mounted men, and of the men sent 20 per cent. were of excellent material but 80 per cent. were inferior to ordinary recruits, utterly untrained and unable to ride or shoot. Since they were sent they have been painfully taught, and are not yet efficient, and they have not efficient officers. If the Government are going to bring home a large proportion of infantry, what force are they going to keep in South Africa? If a large proportion of infantry is withdrawn from Cape Colony you will be leaving there an insufficient force of experienced and trained mounted men quite incapable of coping with the present military situation in Cape Colony. I say that the Government ought to have foreseen this situation. The Secretary of State for War in the last speech which he made upon the military situation in South Africa spoke of the present condition of things as guerilla warfare, and concluded his remarks almost with the exact words of that great authority on warfare, Clausewitz, who wrote, however, before the Mexican War, which was a guerilla war, in which the chances of the French were less satisfactory than ours in South Africa, because of the enormous population of Mexico as compared with the sparse population of South Africa. On the other hand, we have in South Africa an enormously greater force than the French ever led in Mexico—something like ten times as great—and the
    1006
    war in South Africa is of such a character that we cannot afford to treat it lightly. This guerilla warfare I do not believe can possibly be brought to an end by proclamation. It can only be done by warlike operations conducted by the most effective kind of military force. I should like to read a condensation of a translation of what was written by one of the greatest authorities on warfare, Clausewitz, in his immortal work in the "Armed Nation ' chapter of the book on "Defence," chapter 26, book vi. I quote these words because I say that the Government ought to have foreseen the nature of this war and ought to have made the only kind of preparation which can be effective against this kind of warfare—
    "However small and weak a State may be, if it foregoes a last supreme effort there is no longer any soul left in it.…Suppose a surface exceeding in extent that of any country in Europe except Russia…the national character favourable, the country of a mountainous nature,…a poor population accustomed to hard work, …scattered dwellings. The principle of resistance exists everywhere, but is nowhere tangible. In such Armed peasants are not like a body of soldiers, who keep together like a herd of cattle and follow their noses. Armed peasants, on the contrary, when broken, disperse in all directions. The march of every small body of troops…becomes a service of a very dangerous character, for at any moment a combat may arise; if no armed bodies have even been seen for some time, yet these same peasants, driven off by the head of the column, may at any hour make their appearance in its rear…. There are no means to oppose to that action except detaching numerous parties to furnish escorts for convoys. They are overpowered at some points. Courage rises…. A people's war should be like a kind of nebulous vapoury essence, never condense into a solid body."
    That is a prophetic description of guerilla warfare quite different from that which had been seen in Spain, to some extent like that which the French had afterwards to face in Mexico, and exactly like that which we have to face in South Africa at the present time. I believe that in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony the military situation has greatly improved, out in the Cape I am convinced that the situation is no better, and that you are not facing it with those military precautions which you ought to take. What are we told in all the letters we are constantly receiving from the officers who are conducting these military operations in the field? They say as regards the move-

    1007
    ments of our mounted forces that they are greatly hampered by seniority. Every regular army must be in such cases. Before our troops can follow a considerable force of the enemy any distance preparations have to be made for requiring the consent of the various general military officers throughout the military hierarchy. This delays rapid movement. We are unable to march without guns and wagons—ammunition, forage, staff, and ambulance wagons, and a number of dismounted men and other impedimenta, and the result is that the mounted columns now scouring the country start on terms of absolute inferiority from this point of view to the enemy who are entirely mounted men, with two or three horses each, and are entirely unencumbered by baggage and guns.
    The French had to face the same problem under worse conditions in some respects in Mexico as we have to face in South Africa, because they had only at any time some 39,000 men, while the Mexicans were vastly more numerous than the Boers. On the other hand, they had to face the difficulty in some respects under more favourable conditions than exist for us in South Africa. Then, as to the mode in which they tried to face this difficulty in Mexico. The mode adopted by the French, although it failed in Mexico, was the only means by which guerilla operations of this kind can be brought to an end. Unless from your enormous force you can turn out a picked force of mounted men superior to your enemy you can never succeed in running them down. The mere presence of large numbers of troops in blockhouses and the concentration of troops on the lines of communication will never bring this war to an end. The columns which we have now in the field, taking the average of the men, are not superior to those of our enemy, and the only course you ought to take—and this is the opinion of those who are conducting the operations and who are actually commanding the columns in South Africa—is that you have got to do what the French did in Mexico, and what all the writers and teachers of military warfare say you ought to do, and that is to produce a picked body of men from your large army which will be superior to your opponents.
    1008
    Just as in naval warfare you have to outnumber and watch your enemies' ships and follow them, so, in this war in South Africa, you will have to follow your enemy and run them down with a superior force. I think that before the session ends it is necessary that someone should state what is the common talk of every officer who is writing home to his relations and immediate friends. Your mounted columns are at present much below the average standard of the Boers, and they are very much hampered. The present condition of things in Cape Colony is very dangerous to the future of South Africa. You will never bring this war to an end by a policy of proclamation, and the only way possible is to get together a force which will be superior to that of the enemy.
    *MR. MARKHAM: I did not join in the recent debates on South African affairs because I hold the opinion that the debates which have taken place in this House have tended to prolong the war in South Africa. We have now arrived at a stage in the war when I think it is necessary that the Government should earnestly consider the steps to be taken in order to prevent what has occurred in the past. I contend that there is no analogy whatever, as the Colonial Secretary seems to suppose, between Kaffirs and Indian troops. I have travelled on the Northwestern frontier, and how anyone can compare Indian troops with savages in Africa I know not. Speaking of the men now in the field against us, the Colonial Secretary said that their families were being provided for now in the concentration camps better than ever they were before in their lives. While on shooting expeditions I have lived in the houses of these Boers, and I should be sorry to have received from them the same scanty provisions which are dealt out to the Boers in the concentration camps. The Government had no right to establish concentration camps unless they were able to provide for those families. If through military exigencies it was necessary to concentrate, then there was an obligation to feed those families. You have no right to bring the families of the Boers into camps

    1009
    unless you are able to maintain them. You are now employing the natives—the men who have been the servants of the Boers. When a British column comes into a district these men are requisitioned as scouts by the British. They are either combatants or non-combatants, and it is idle to talk of their not being employed against the enemy if they are requisitioned as scouts. You have had to fight an enemy which, as a military Power, did not exist until 1896, when, on account of the invasion of their country, they became a military Power. We have to recollect that the Colonial Secretary has put before the House the argument that the Filippinos had received money from the American Government to lay down their arms It is true that in South Africa we have not seen, and I hope we never shall see, a similar case. I hope that the Boer leaders will not, as has been done in the Philippine Islands, betray their people for the sake of money. I think that was a very poor argument to put forward with respect to a brave people like the Boers. I do not wish to trespass at any great length on the time of the House, but I have some notes which I wish, with the indulgence of the House, to read. In this House a few months ago I heard a discussion between the Colonial Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the term "pro-Boer." The Colonial Secretary had used the term pro-Boer, and the Leader of the Opposition replied that that was an offensive epithet. I do not hesitate to say that if the meaning of pro-Boer is detestation of the policy of His Majesty's Government, I am a pro-Boer. We are entitled to hold our views. We are always Englishmen first, whether our views be right or wrong. We all, according to our lights, do as we think best in the interest of our country, but that any man or set of men, because they do not hold the views of the majority, are, to be termed by offensive epithets, I think myself is a poor argument. I am satisfied with the epithet if it means that I am in thorough opposition to the policy of the Government in South Africa. In regard to this question I speak in the interest of peace, and though what I am about to say I know will not be accepted by hon. Members on the other side of the House, I do ask that they will listen
    1010
    to what I have to say for the reason that I have studied for a number of years, the South African question, and I claim to know as much on this subject as most Members of the House, who have not made a special study of the question. I first propose to read a passage from Edmund Burke, which I think is very applicable to the present situation. He said—
    "The operations of the field suffered by the errors of the Cabinet. If the same spirit continues when peace is made, the peace will fix and perpetuate all the errors of the war, because it will be made upon the same false principle. What has been lost in the field may be regained. An anangement of peace in its nature is a permanent settlement; it is the effect of counsel and deliberation and not of fortuitous events"
    The policy of the Government appears to be one of fighting this question out to the bitter end—till the last cartridge has been fired and the last of the enemy has surrendered, without any regard for the future of these two States. Sir, I honestly believe that if you adopt that policy you will lose South Africa altogether. As the policy of carrying on the war has been delegated by the Government to Lord Milner, and as peace or war rests chiefly with him, it is necessary for the House to carefully consider whether the past actions of Lord Milner warrant the Government in relieving themselves of the responsibilities which in my opinion must rest upon them. Could any Government take a more foolish or a more irritating step than to appoint Lord Milner as administrator of these two States? What good object can be attained by that appointment? You say that you are going to have a firm policy in South Africa—that you must have a policy that will show to these rebels that the States are to be governed with a strong hand. But is there not in the British Empire a man who could have carried on the government of these countries without causing distrust and irritation in that country? Lord Milner's policy has entailed terrible loss of life and suffering to the people of this country; it has entailed the devastation of those States; it has brought poverty and misery, and it will bring greater misery yet to the people of this country through the suicidal policy of spending money in the way in which it is now being wasted. In carrying

    1011
    on the war you have laid waste these lands by fire and sword, and it is the boast of the Government that it is their intention to carry on the war to a conclusion and to offer no terms of peace, which you are bound to accord to an honourable enemy. In doing this you are not following the usages of civilised warfare. When Lord Milner arrived in South Africa he had a difficult position to face. He was confronted with racial hatred—a hatred which will not die away so soon as some people think. The Jameson raid was an accomplished fact, and racial hatred had been fanned by this wicked and criminal action. I am sure that Lord Milner did act according to what he thought the interest of the country and the Empire, but in his actions he was guided by one party in the Cape whose object was not so much to benefit the people living in these countries as to benefit themselves. In this House we have seen the break-up of a strong Opposition—we have seen an Opposition which, except on the Irish benches, has ceased to be an Opposition—and I attribute that very largely to the part which, with the very best intentions no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition took in reference to the South Africa inquiry. I am sure that the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire since the war broke out show that he has spoken for what he believes to be in the interest of the country, and although it has been an unpopular period he has faced it unflinchingly, but I only wish that he had not in the earlier stages, for reasons which are perhaps better known to him, become a party to the policy which was pursued in connection with that inquiry and to a verdict which not only did not give confidence but which has led to all the trouble in South Africa to-day. That is my honest opinion. But at the same time the House must not forget that all these armaments which have been gathered together in these republics and which are now being used against us were collected during this administration and the past administration. They were not collected till after the Jameson raid. It
    1012
    was your duty, with the full knowledge that all these munitions of war were pouring into the Transvaal, to have protested, but you were unable to protest, for the reason that the statesmen of this country had entered into an alliance to prevent the truth with regard to that criminal action of the raid from coming to light. If you had sent the men who were responsible into fifteen or twenty years penal servitude you would have had no war in South Africa. Here you had a case of a body of men gathering together arms and munitions in South Africa, not with the object of benefiting the country but benefiting themselves. Lord Milner found the whole press in South Africa in the hands of a few men, with the exception of Ons Land and the South African News. I do not believe there is a single paper in South Africa of any importance which is not in the hands of a few men and on the side of those who have brought this war about. Far be it from me to say one word against the integrity of the press of this country, but I think they have greatly aggravated and are aggravating to-day the position in South Africa. The Times and all the organs that have taken a strong attitude about the war have done so in no way from sordid motives, but solely because they think they are advocating the policy which is best for this country; but the methods they have employed and are employing to-day are not in my humble opinion calculated to promote the peace which is necessary for South Africa. The press at the present time has a great influence for good or evil in this country, and I hold that the press during the past two years has done more harm by creating and prolonging this war than the whole good it has done in the past twenty-five years. I understand that I should not be in order in dealing with the manner in which it has been worked, or is worked to-day, in South Africa, as that is not germane to the question before the House. The Colonial Secretary, in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, made a very important statement—namely, that no peace negotiations of any kind had so far been entered into or attempted by the Government. That statement was, no doubt, deliberately

    1013
    made, but I think it is due to the House to know that the previous peace negotiations carried on by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary were not of a very happy character, and I hope if peace negotiations are entered into again, which I earnestly trust they will be, they will not be in his hands. In March, 1899, the Transvaal Government were anxious' to avoid war, and to come to a settlement with the Uitlanders. Negotiations with that object were opened between the South African Republic and this country. Meetings were held in Johannesburg and London, and the Transvaal Government deputed to attend these meetings Mr. Edward Lippert, in whom they had confidence. These negotiations were carried through in secret. All that took place in South Africa was at once wired here to gentlemen who sat in the Gold-fields Office in London. The Goldfields Office sent long messages daily to Johannesburg setting out the views of those on this side of the water. In the middle of these negotiations, when a settlement had practically been arrived at, and, let me tell the House, with the full knowledge that these negotiations were in progress, the Colonial Secretary came down to this House on March 20th or 21st, and told the House that the promises of President Kruger were not worth having, and were valueless. I have seen copies of the original telegrams that passed between London and Johannesburg, and I should like to know whether the statement made in one of these cables was correct—that no step was taken in these negotiations without the knowledge and consent of the Colonial Office. When these negotiations were in progress, and a settlement had nearly been arrived at, a speech was made here by the Colonial Secretary. I have heard from friends that when the report of this speech arrived at Johannesburg and Pretoria, President Kruger at once said—
    "Here we have settled nearly all these questions that have arisen, and your Colonial Secretary in London says that my promises are not worth having. I will fight you for my country."
    And from that day. March 25th, peace negotiations were at an end so far as the Transvaal was concerned in the true spirit of what peace negotiations should
    1014
    be. We pass down to the period of the Bloemfontein Conference, where the same policy was carried out to the letter. Was there a symptom or a desire to arrive at any settlement except the irreducible minimum shown at Bloemfontein? That was the point on which the negotiations failed. There was no sympathy, no give and take, no trust in a settlement shown. I should like to know whether you are going to carry on the negotiations which you are bound to carry on sooner or later, if you are to have an honourable peace—are you going to carry them on on the basis of the irreducible minimum? I venture to say that the proclamation which has recently been issued by the Government is the most foolish of all the many harebrained and purblind steps that have been taken in South Africa. Do you think that the people who have seen their homes ruined and desolation wrought throughout the land, who have lost their property, and whose families have been sent into concentration camps, will not treat with contempt this or any proclamation sent to them with regard to banishment of leaders, and the confiscation of any property they have left? The Boers know well enough that you can never carry this proclamation into effect, and that the whole civilised world will protest against any such proposition on your part. If you wish to create in South Africa a peaceful and contented people, you are going the very way that is calculated to create distrust. What could possibly be more calculated to create distrust than the threat to banish from South Africa the leaders of those men? Will the men who are left in South Africa after the war is over forget their comrades in arms? They will still be your foes, and they will only be acting according to the dictates of humanity and brotherhood. Every step you take in the direction of banishing men from South Africa will cause trouble not only in that country, but to the taxpayers of this country. You are bound sooner or later to hand back these territories to the Boers to administer, unless you are going to hold South Africa by the sword. That will be a new departure. But if you are going to hold South Africa by the ties of affection and sympathy with the people you have to live alongside of,

    1015
    you are taking the best steps to destroy those ties and that sympathy. If you choose to maintain your hold on South Africa by the sword, so surely will you lose it. Your dangers and troubles are not now. When this war is over, they are only about to commence. If you do not come to a settlement on this question I am convinced that it will be necessary to maintain 50,000 soldiers in South Africa. Are you going to maintain these men there or are you going to have a settlement of this question by a peace which will do honour to a brave enemy? I am sorry that I have had to trespass on the time of the House so long, but I do hope and pray that the Government will not adhere to the policy of fighting to the last. It is the strong who can afford to be magnanimous; it is only the weak who show their weakness by refusing honourable terms to a brave foe.
    MR. PIRIEsaid that he cordially agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield, although he thought in one thing the hon. Member had made a slight mistake—when in reference to the Bloemfontein Congress and the treatment there of Mr. Kruger by Sir Alfred Milner, now Lord Milner, he spoke of the treatment meted out by Sir Alfred Milner as the treatment of a weak man by a strong man. Had he reversed the persons he thought the hon. Gentleman would have been more accurate. Kruger was one of the strongest men of the day, and he could not help thinking that if the Colonial Secretary had gauged him more accurately he might have saved the terrible complications in which this country now found itself. He desired on this occasion to address himself to what he might call the new policy that the last proclamation issued in South Africa seemed on the verge of bringing about. The Colonial Secretary had stated that South Africa was bound to gain from the proclamation—it would gain by the submission of the Boers, or if it did not do that, South Africa would gain by having the leaders banished from the country, but surely before the leaders were banished from the country they would have to be caught. It seemed to him to show an extraordinary lack of
    1016
    common sense to imagine that these men would yield in any way or be tempted to yield by the proclamation which had just been issued. It was as full of the most extraordinary anomalies as a document of such supreme importance could be. It appeared to him to be an attempt to bring parliamentary methods to bear, and to bring the war to an end by the closure. Everyone would remember that when the war commenced it was said that the politicians worked for war and the military had prepared for peace. Anybody who read the proclamation would see not the hand of the soldier but the hand of the civilian, by which it had been displaced. Expert advice was glaringly absent, and although the proclamation might be fathered on the Commander-in-Chief of the forces in South Africa, Lord Kitchener, it was the work of men absolutely ignorant and unable to realise the situation. The preamble was absurd, and was a mass of contradictions. It first of all talked of the great majority being anxious to live in peace and earn their own livelihood, and went on to speak in the same manner of the prisoners in the camps; it spoke of the Boers being absolutely without military organisation, and then it went on to attack those in a position of authority." The four principal points of the preamble, put forward in grandiloquent language, were these. First it said, "We are in possession of all the principal towns of the two countries." How many principal towns were there? Three, Pretoria, and Johannesburg, which were comprised entirely of foreign elements, with conditions of life absolutely foreign to the life of the interior, and Bloemfontein, which was an overgrown village, which was also absolutely independent of the country. If the villages, which were the real centres of the community upon which the lives of the Orange Colony and the Transvaal depended, had been dealt with, the matter might have been looked at in a quite different light. There were some eighty or ninety villages in these two countries, which represented the centres of life of the community of those countries, and of these we did not possess more than twenty-five. The remaining fifty-five were in the hands of the Boers, and of those twenty-five we did not really

    1017
    hold more than five, and day by day and month by month the Boers saw us vacate village after village, and the proclamation under those circumstances would only call forth their derision.
    Then they were told that the burghers of the two republics were already prisoners or had submitted to His Majesty's Government, and were living peaceably to the extent of 35,000. The point was not how many had submitted but how many were left, and whether the 35,000 who had submitted were all fighting men. He believed if they looked into the statistics that they would find that not more than 20,000 fighting men were prisoners of war in our hands, and if that 20,000 was deducted from the original army the number of troops in the field against us now must be between 16,000 and 20,000. The vital point was how many men were left in the field against us. The proclamation went on to say that organised resistance was impossible; but throughout the whole history of the war as conducted by the Transvaal and the Orange Free State could be traced the work of a central authority, especially with regard to the universally carried-out rule of releasing their prisoners, and even still in the shooting of natives captured. There was evidence of a central authority throughout, and it was idle to talk of the absence of organised resistance. Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the whole proclamation was the last item, which said that the Boers continued to make isolated attacks upon small posts in detachments. Surely war, if carried on at all, was not a one-sided affair, and it was not for us to complain that it was not carried on as we wished. It reminded him of the recent events in China with regard to the demand for the punishment of Chinese Ministers—they had to be caught first, and when these men were pitted against enormous bodies of men it was contemptible to complain that they would not come out to be caught. Where was the manhood of the nation which could countenance such a proclamation being issued? He was a very humble Member of the House, but he had intelligence enough to know what a great soldier had said about the conduct of this war, and he ventured to draw atten-
    1018
    tion to the letter written by that veteran Field Marshal Sir Neville Chamberlain, and no one could say a word against the feeling which prompted that letter being written. On the conduct of the war, he said—
    "I dissent because the necessity has never been made clear to the nation to justify a departure from the recognised laws of international warfare."
    He further stated—
    "I do not wish to imply that extreme measures are never justified during war, but I do assert that the daily reports which have appeared in the press during the past seven or eight months indicate that a great wave of destruction has been spread over the Orange and Vaal States, such as has never before been enacted by our armies."
    And then he went on to say that incidents had taken place, but whenever they had taken place—
    "even in the dark days of the Indian Mutiny, when there was an ever present sense of the inhumanities practised by the mutineers and others who abetted them, there never existed the idea that the horrors of war were to be indiscriminately carried into the homes of the population."
    And he concluded by quoting the words of Sir Philip Sidney that "cruelty in war buyeth conquest at the dearest price." The cruelty of this war was the cruelty of the Government in demanding terms which no civilised nation had a right to enforce upon another. We were paying the dearest price for conquest. We had now a rebellion in Cape Colony which did not exist in the beginning of the war, when the conditions were ten times as favourable for the Cape colonists to rebel. It was the action of the Government which created the rebellion. They had created a hatred of our rule which had never existed before, and they could not be surprised that the people rebelled. There were two principal causes of that rebellion. One was that the Government were beginning to arm the natives; one of the greatest dangers in South Africa was the great black population, and he agreed with what the Colonial Secretary said about the native, that he was not to be treated upon an equality with the white men, but must be kept under subjection. The second cause was the execution of Cape colonists. Never had such a measure been carried out by any civilised country since the days of the Inquisition. Not only had the Government enacted

    1019
    public execution, but they had forced Cape colonists to witness the execution of their countrymen when those executions took place inside the prisons. He had no words to express his disapproval and hatred of such a course. The proper course for the Government to have adopted when they heard of such things taking place would have been to have disowned them, but for a long time they would give no answer whatever to this charge, and eventually, instead of disowning the acts, merely said they would not be repeated. They would not be repeated because the Government would not dare repeat such an action. The Government had made the matter worse by attempting to palliate such deeds as those. It was actions such as these that lost us the American colonies. Similar things took place in that country 120 years ago, at the time of the American War, and there were men in the House of Lords and in this House who protested as strongly as they could against what was taking place in America. He would draw the attention of the House to the protest of thirty-one Peers against those actions in 1778—
    "The public law of nations, in affirmance of the dictates of nature and the principles of revealed religion, forbids us to resort to the extremes of war upon our own opinion of their expediency, or in any case to carry on war for the purpose of desolation. Those objects of war that cannot be compassed by fair and honourable hostility ought not to be compassed at all. An end that has no means but such as are unlawful is an unlawful end. We choose to draw ourselves out and to distinguish ourselves to posterity, as not being the first to renew, to approve, or to tolerate the return of that ferocity and barbarism in war which a beneficent religion and enlightened manners and true military honour had for a long time banished from the Christian world."
    There were Members of this present House who chose to draw themselves out from what the country had sanctioned in this war, and they also protested against what was going on in South Africa, as these thirty-one peers had protested 120 years ago against what was going on in America. He considered that what was taking place now was worse than what took place then, because the world had advanced in civilisation. It might be only a small protest they made, but they could not be silent, feeling as they did that what
    1020
    was going on must be detrimental to the future of the Empire. Conquest had been finished with, and the word which now ought to be used was the word "pacify." Unless the word "conquest" was eliminated, in his opinion South Africa would be lost to this country. The policy of the Government would have to be reversed. We were strong enough to admit we had made a mistake, and we should acknowledge our mistake. With regard to the military situation, that had been dealt with by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. Perhaps he might be allowed, to quote a letter from South Africa, giving the writer's view of the civilian situation—
    "Things are rapidly getting worse, and unless some change is made, and that immediately, a great number more men will be forced to join the Boer forces. The treatment of the farmers of this colony is too abominable for words, and now the trial of men by incompetent military courts for their life without reference to the civil courts is more than men will stand. The military do not seem to appreciate the fact that the majority of the farmers, English as well as Dutch, are at the mercy of the Boer commanders, and if their men are shot retaliation will follow as a natural result, and then what will be the position of the unfortunate non-combatants in the out-districts? You know that I am no alarmist, but I feel the position is rapidly drifting to a terrible tragedy."
    He regretted more than he could tell that no negotiations, according to the Colonial Secretary, were possible. Surely there were terms upon which the Boers could retain their independence. Let them have their land, surrounding it with British territory. There were a dozen means of obtaining peace if only the will to obtain peace was there, and also the will to put away that false pride and obstinacy which lay at the bottom of it. Even when the war was over, the difficulties would be only beginning. Those who advocated peace were said to be anti-national and anti-patriotic. But there was something higher and nobler than merely seeking government or power, and that was to endeavour to guide one's country into the way of righteousness, peace, and right-doing.
    MR. BRYCE: The Colonial Secretary began his speech by asking my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire what was his

    1021
    object in raising the question to which he referred, and he suggested that such speeches would have the effect of prolonging the war. That suggestion has often been made, and it is absolutely destitute of foundation. Since the negotiations at Bloemfontein in May, 1900, there has not been the slightest evidence that anything said here has had the least effect on the action of the Boers. It has been the wish of the Government from the first to represent those who have condemned the war as having had a sinister influence on the progress of events in South Africa, and therefore we may be sure that if there had been a single case in which it could be shown that anything said in England had influenced the minds of the Boer leaders that case would have been brought out and made the most of. The absence of any such evidence is the most convincing proof that nothing of the sort has happened. In the recently-discovered correspondence between Mr. Reitz and Mr. Steyn there was a letter in which Mr. Steyn quoted, not something said in this country, but a passage from a Natal newspaper which had supported and defended the war; and that is the nearest approach to anything affording the slightest foundation for this charge. If anything said here has influenced the war it has been the intemperate speeches made on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the violence—I might almost say the ferocity—of some organs of the British Press.
    I now come to the proclamation. My right hon. friend did not speak in vain, for he elicited from the Colonial Secretary what I can hardly call anything but a repudiation of the proclamation itself. That proclamation was taken by everybody who read it as a refusal of belligerent rights to the Boers in the field. The impression naturally produced by the text was that His Majesty's Government considered the time had come when the Boers should be treated no longer as belligerents but as rebels. That construction has been completely abandoned by the Colonial Secretary, and I think that is a real gain. This proclamation has been regarded in foreign countries as a declaration that the Boers were not to be treated as belligerents. For that reason I look upon its terms as
    1022
    having been most unfortunate, and I hope the disclaimer of the Colonial Secretary will obtain the same publicity as the unhappy proclamation itself. The long preamble seems to be intended to prove that the Boers are no longer carrying on legitimate warfare, that the struggle has degenerated into a series of guerilla operations, and that therefore the Boers have lost whatever privileges they otherwise would have had. What other meaning can there be of such references as "devoid of regular military organisation"? To begin with, that statement is not true. So far as we know, the organisation under Botha and Delarey is as regular as it was at the beginning of the war. What can be said of the passage—
    "Whereas those burghers who are still in arms…continue to make isolated attacks upon small posts and detachments of His Majesty's forces, to plunder or destroy property, and to damage the railway and telegraph lines, both in the Grange River Colony and the Transvaal."
    Surely that means that this is not legitimate warfare; that the persons carrying it on are simply destroying property, and are not entitled to be treated as belligerents.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.
    MR. BRYCE: But that is not the opinion of the Colonial Secretary, so that the hon. Member opposite is plus royal que le Roi. But although the Colonial Secretary disclaims in clear and unmistakable terms any intention of treating the Boers now as not being belligerents, he implies that a time may come when they will cease to be so regarded. That is important, and I think we should put on record our views as to the character of the belligerents, in case any attempt should be made during the next six months to deny belligerent rights to these people. It is sometimes assumed that guerilla warfare is that which is carried on by small parties of persons. That is not so at all. The number of the forces operating has nothing to do with the matter. I will read a definition from a book on international law by a recognised authority:—
    "Guerilla troops are bands of men, self-organised and self-controlled, who carry on warfare against a public enemy without being

    1023
    under the direct control of the State. They have no commissions or enlistments, nor are they enrolled as being part of the military forces of the State. Some have attempted to apply the rule as to guerillas to inhabitants of a State who rise en masse and take up arms to repel an invasion. The distinction between these cases is manifest."
    These terms apply precisely to the present case. War is being carried on by comparatively small bodies of troops. It is not for one of the parties to a war to prescribe how the struggle should be carried on by the other. If it suits our opponents to proceed by means of small bodies of men they are perfectly right to do so. The question is not whether the bands are large or small, but whether the troops are organised, whether they are under the authority of the State, whether they have recognised leaders, and whether those leaders can be made responsible for the actions of the troops. All these criteria are satisfied in the case of the Boer forces at present in the field. The Governments to which they owe allegiance have never been displaced—for the annexation is merely a paper annexation; these people are loyal to their own Governments, and so long as they retain their organisation and obey their leaders they will continue to be belligerents. It is not for one party to a war to deprive the other party of belligerent rights unless a change has passed over the nature of the war and the character of those who carry it on, which completely transforms them from being legitimate troops of their country. That has not happened in this case, there is no sign that it will happen, and until it does happen we should be committing a gross breach of international law if we refused them belligerent rights.
    There is another point made by the Colonial Secretary to which I wish to advert. By what right is punishment to be inflicted on the soldiers in the field? Two kinds of punishment are proposed—perpetual banishment for the leaders, and confiscation of property for the troops. The proposal to charge upon the troops the cost of keeping their women and children is practically a proposal to confiscate their property. I am not aware of any authority in law or any precedent for pronouncing punishment against belligerents, and, be it remembered, this is put forward as a matter of
    1024
    punishment. The Colonial Secretary said that pecuniary penalties ought to be inflicted on the rank and file, and, referring to the leaders, "we must bring home to them the fact that they must personally suffer." He did not put the matter on the ground of the security of the State or of the preservation of peace when these countries have been reduced to the position of conquered territory, but on the ground of punishment. By what right is this done? They are not your subjects; you can only punish them if they are rebels, and the Colonial Secretary, by admitting that they are belligerents, has admitted that they are not rebels.
    Then the Colonial Secretary alleged that the women in the camps were allowed to go at will. I believe that to be absolutely contrary to the fact. These women were driven into the camps. Many of them asked to be allowed to remain on their farms. Some of the camps are surrounded by barbed wire fences. But even if it is true that now in some cases it is possible for the women to leave the camps, it must be remembered that that is a very different thing from saying they can go of their own free will. How is a woman and her children, who has been carried perhaps hundreds of miles from a desolated farmhouse, to return to her home? It is absurd under such circumstances to say that she remains in the camp of her own free will. The proposal to impose a fine—probably a ruinous one—upon the burghers in the field came from Natal, and it has the appearance of a proposal for confiscation. It has the air of a pretext for punishing the burghers in the field by taking their farms from them, in order that those farms may be open for settlement or sale by the British Government. That is quite opposed to international law, one of the first principles of which is that the private property of belligerents is safe. The Colonial Secretary made a comparison with the Filippinos, but surely the differences between the two cases are patent enough to deprive the comparison of any value. To begin with, not to dwell on the differences in the character of the two nations, and in the nature of their military organisation, these nations are two civilised States, which for

    1025
    many years have been regularly governed, while the Orange Free State has been recognised to be one of the best governed people in the world. On the other hand, the Philippine Republic never was an independent Government. It was an insurrectionary Government, holding its own as well as it could against the Spaniards, and it entered into friendly relations with the Americans because it believed the Americans had come to help them. There can be no parallel between the two cases. I should be very loth to think we were to imitate the proclamation which the Colonial Secretary says has been issued by the United States general, and I should like to know whether the proclamation has been acted upon. I do not believe it has, or that the public opinion of the United States would tolerate such conduct on the part of one of their generals.
    This proclamation has the air of an outburst of anger at the prolongation of the war, and it seems to be an attempt to effect by threats that which our arms have not yet been able to accomplish. It rests on the notion that because we desire to put an end to the war, all means are lawful to secure our object. Such a view will justify severities which I hope the Government will never think of inflicting. I have great doubts whether this policy will be successful. These methods of deportation—for they are nothing else—have an ancient precedent in the action of Nebuchadnezzar when he deported the inhabitants of the country he had conquered on the ground that the country would he a great deal more peaceful when the disturbing element had gone. But that is not an argument which should be used by a civilised and self-respecting Power. There have been three serious blunders in the conduct of the war. The first was the refusal to negotiate in May, 1900, when we were invited to negotiate, and might, I believe, have succeeded in attaching a very large portion of the burghers in the field, and in that way have brought the war to a conclusion. Then there was Lord Roberta's proclamation, affecting to treat the burghers in the field as rebels. What could have been more fatal than a proclamation so palpably opposed to international law that the law officers of
    1026
    the Crown, although repeatedly challenged, never ventured to say a word in its defence, and which had to be withdrawn within two or three weeks of its issue? It was not withdrawn, however, before we had put ourselves in the wrong in the eyes of the world, and had further exasperated the minds of the Boers. Then there was the policy of farm-burning. That also was admitted to be a mistake, because, when remonstrances were made in this House, that, too, was abandoned. I believe that this present proclamation may very well turn out to be no less a blunder.
    The right hon. Gentleman says it will be a gain to banish these men if they do not submit, that we should be all the better without them. Is it common sense to say that because a man opposes you valiantly in the field, fighting for his country as long as he can fight, therefore he will necessarily be a source of danger when the country has been pacified and institutions restored? I do not think it in the least follows. Nor can I see why a man should be banished for doing that which we should admire if done by anybody else. If this war was being carried on, not between Great Britain and these two Republics, but between France or Germany, and some petty State, would not the sympathy of every man in this country be with the men who were fighting for their freedom? Can we not put ourselves in the state of mind of these people? Suppose, for the sake of argument, the war is just, and we are in the right. Can you withhold your admiration from men who have so valiantly fought for their country?
    I have spoken of the application of political methods to this war. So far as they have been applied they have been unfortunate. It is true, however, that if ever there was a war which ought to have been carried on with some reference to policy, and to which political as well as military methods ought to have been applied, it is this war. You are fighting, not a Government, but a nation in arms, and it was therefore vital to your purpose and end, if possible, to win over the mind of the nation, and not further to exasperate it against you. Besides, you had subjects in Cape Colony whose loyalty was doubtful, because the men you were

    1027
    fighting were their near kinsfolk. It was of the greatest importance that you should not further exasperate the Gape colonists, or light up a smouldering rebellion You want to make these people your fellow-subjects, to annex their territory, to turn the States into British colonies, to give them at some future date self-governing institutions, and to get the inhabitants to work side by side with men of British race in the endeavour to conduct the government of the country. Was it not, therefore, a capital error to alienate these people, to increase their exasperation, and to make it more and more difficult for the two peoples to live together in the future? A worse policy could not have been followed, whether with regard to the burghers in the field, the inhabitants of the annexed territories, or our own fellow subjects in the Cape Colony. All these considerations have been neglected, and I believe the main cause of the prolongation of the war has been the methods by which it has been carried on, and the impression produced by those methods on the minds of the people of Cape Colony. We have had a melancholy prospect opened to us. It is quite possible that when we meet in January or February next the same dreary state of things will be continuing. The Colonial Secretary is an optimist, but his optimism contrasts strangely with the extreme pessimism of his tone, and very little chance is given to the forces of peace and good feeling.
    There are other topics on which I wish to say a word, because this is the last opportunity we shall have for months to come. There is the question of the future constitution of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. That is a matter of such gravity that the House of Commons is well entitled to be consulted with regard to it. We ought to know what constitution it is intended to apply to these countries, because on the terms of that constitution the future of the countries depends.
    I would also refer in passing to the suspension of the constitution in Cape Colony. That is a serious matter, and it is likely to become more serious. At present money is being drawn without legal warrant from the Treasury of the colony—a thing which, although done
    1028
    once or twice before, has never been done to so large an extent or under circumstances comparable to the present. Next October, under the constitution of the colony, it is absolutely necessary that Parliament should be convoked, and the constitution will be formally broken if that is not done. I want to know if it is the intention of the Government to permit such a serious breach of the constitution. The argument by which the other day the Colonial Secretary justified the non-summoning of Parliament would apply equally well in October next, and nothing more dangerous for the future of the country can be conceived than to allow the constitution to be broken in such a manner. It is the more serious when we consider the condition of the colony. The country is under martial law; it is occupied by large numbers of troops; it is necessary that there should be an opportunity for the statement of complaints and grievances, that there should be chances for discussion, and that acts of oppression and wrong-doing should be brought before the Legislative Assembly, so that Ministers can give their explanation. It would be a great wrong to allow martial law to subsist and at the same time to suspend legislative action. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean dwelt on the very serious condition of things in Cape Colony. I believe that is the darkest part of South Africa at present, and it will be still further darkened if you suspend the constitution, and prevent the voice of complaint having legitimate and full scope.
    As to the question of terms, I am afraid this proclamation reduces the chances of any negotiations being opened. The Colonial Secretary, with the air of a man who is locking the door and putting the key in his pocket, told us there were no negotiations going on at present. In spite of that, I hope that between now and the next meeting of Parliament the question of entering into negotiations will not be neglected or disregarded by His Majesty's Government. It is not by any means the case that the defiant language of General Botha represents necessarily the set purpose and determination of the Boers. Shortly after that language was used there came the correspondence between Mr. Reitz and Mr.

    1029
    Steyn, from which it appeared there was a disposition in the Transvaal to come to terms. We have no reason to conclude that if reasonable terms were offered they would not be accepted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "reasonable terms?"
    MR. BRYCE: If I discussed the whole question of terms I should detain the House longer than I wish to do, but I think the terms should embody those stated, particularly by my right hon. friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs. They should include some provision for the restoration of the people to their farms, the grant of an amnesty at the conclusion of the war, which, I admit, cannot be made at this moment, but might well be made as part of the terms of surrender, the promise of self-government at a comparatively early date, which, unfortunately, I have no reason to believe the Government intend, and, of course, the withdrawal of the threats of banishment and confiscation of property which are now being made. I doubt whether if such terms were proposed they would be rejected. ["Oh, oh!"] I want to call attention to one great advantage, in having terms. Hon. Gentleman must not allow themselves to be carried away by bitterness or exasperation. They must look at the question as men of business who desire to see peace and tranquillity restored to these colonies. The worst thing that could happen would be, after the war has been carried on for some time longer, that the forces which are now in arms against us should, instead of making a regular and proper surrender on terms, vanish across the border into German or Portuguese territory, or scatter and, so to speak, disappear like an African river into the ground. That would, indeed, be an element of future danger, because these men would carry with them a far more bitter feeling of anger, and would be far more likely to resume insurrection whenever they thought they had a chance of success, whereas if you allowed them to surrender on terms, you would give them some little
    1030
    solace in point of honour—which I do not think you ought to begrudge to brave enemies—and having made an arrangement, it would appeal to their minds that they should endeavour to observe it. There would be a far better chance of future peace and tranquillity under such conditions than if you insist on unconditional surrender. I have only one word more to say, but I must say it, because the attitude of those who from the first have protested against the war has been so constantly misrepresented. I do not refer to the Colonial Secretary's epithet of "traitors," because the absurdity of that expression is so patent that it carries its own refutation. It is language which might equally well have been applied to Chatham, Burke, and Fox when they resisted the American War, or to Bright and Cobden when they denounced the Crimean War. ["No!"] Hon. Members must remember that the term is applied to persons who simply say that this war is a ghastly and unnecessary blunder. Not only might it have been applied to those whose names I have mentioned, but also to the Duke of Devonshire, Mr. Gladstone, and the Colonial Secretary himself, when they opposed the Afghan War of 1878. But we are constantly held up as being indifferent to the greatness of England, ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite, evidently endorse that charge. It is the exact opposite of the truth. ["No!"] Our opinions on the merits of this war have nothing whatever to do with Imperialism the one way or the other. This is a question by itself, and one in regard to which some of us think the Government have grossly erred. That view is shared by many Conservative friends of mine. ["Oh, oh!"] How can hon. Members know what many Conservative friends have told me? But be that as it may, these are things that any man of common sense can see have nothing whatever to do with Imperialism or Little Englandism in general. Whether we are right or wrong in our view of the war does not matter so far as my present argument is concerned. History will judge between us on that matter, as history has judged of the Crimean War and the conduct of Mr. Gladstone, and those of us who opposed Lord Beaconsfield's Govern-

    1031
    ment between 1876 and 1878. The Prime Minister himself has now admitted that we were right, and that Lord Beaconsfield's Government was wrong.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the negotiations in connection with the Afghan War; he had better read them before he makes a statement of that kind.
    MR. BRYCE: I was referring to the Eastern Question between 1876 and 1878.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: You were referring to the Afghan War.
    MR. BRYCE: No; I was referring to the Eastern Question, from the time of the Bulgarian massacres to the Treaty of Berlin. I am perfectly prepared to meet the noble Lord with regard to the Afghan War, but I was not then referring to it at all. It is because we are attached to the greatness of England, because we are alive to it, and desire to safeguard the interests of the British dominions everywhere, that we deplore the war, which, in our judgment—be it right or wrong—has struck a heavy blow at the welfare of England and her position all over the world. It is for that reason we seek, even now, to modify, in the interests of future peace and safety, the policy the Government are still following, and which, as we think, is calculated to aggravate every existing danger and imperil still further the strength and credit of the British Empire. That strength and credit has hitherto rested not merely on our naval and military strength, which we desire as much as hon. Members opposite to maintain in the fullest measure, but on the reputation of our country for justice, and the attachment to it of all the people who live under its flag.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I was very glad to hear my right hon. friend protest in the strongest possible manner against the suggestion made, not for the first time, by the Colonial Secretary, that by our attitude towards this war we were strengthening foreign
    1032
    prejudices against this country and prolonging the war in South Africa. Whenever the Colonial Secretary makes that statement it strikes me that he is rather begging the question. If our criticisms with regard to the conduct of the war are sound, in the interests of the country they ought certainly to be made. Take the question of reduced rations for women and children, or of the concentration camps. In regard to the former, the War Office have practically admitted they were wrong, and the order has been withdrawn. According to the Colonial Secretary we ought not to have made that criticism, and the order should have been allowed to go on. What would have been the result? Foreign nations would have known all about it, and would not their prejudice against this country have been greatly strengthened and justified if no one here had protested against it? The way to evade prejudice is to show that there are Englishmen prepared to criticise even the conduct of our own troops when, in their opinion, it exceeds the limits of civilised warfare. It is, therefore, entirely a question of whether we are right or wrong in our criticism, and if we are right the criticism ought to be made regardless of consequences.
    I agree entirely with my right hon. friend that there is not the slightest evidence in support of the charge that the war has been prolonged by our criticisms. The only bit of anything in the nature of evidence is the letter of ex-President Steyn, in which he refers to a Natal newspaper, and all that paper stated was that there was a feeling of uneasiness in England about the war. Have not the columns of Conservative newspapers during the last six months been filled with matter which might be described as "uneasiness with regard to the conduct of the war"? Look at the Daily Mail, which has supported the war from the start, and which is probably more responsible for the war than any other newspaper. It has been full of criticisms expressing uneasiness about the war during the last six months. That was probably the matter to which the Natal paper referred. Let me quote Lord Milner's words as to the real cause of the prolongation of the war. It is not the criticism in this country of the conduct

    1033
    of the war, but rather the things done in South Africa with the sanction of the Government, which have driven the Gape colonists into rebellion and incensed the burghers in the field. Here are Lord Milner's reasons for the recrudescence of the war, as given in his despatch at the beginning of this year—
    "I doubt whether it (the movement in Cape Colony) would have succeeded to the moderate extent it has had it not been for the recrudescence of the war on the borders of the Colony and the bitter character it has assumed. Every act of harshness, however necessary, on the part of our troops, was exaggerated and made the most of by them. What principally inflamed the minds of the people were alleged instances of needless cruelty which never occurred."
    That is his view. Not the statements made in this House, but the acts of harshness and severity, which we have been told were the only possible methods of suppressing the war, are the reasons given by Lord Milner for the embitterment of feeling and the aggravation of the position in South Africa. A few minutes ago I had put into my hands a letter from a Uitlander minister, and in order to show that he is not a prejudiced witness from my point of view I will quote these words from the letter—
    "If we were not wholly in the right when the war began—I speak as a Uitlander—we had at least a great deal on our side. I think we had the bulk."
    He, therefore, believes in the justice of the war. But he goes on—
    "We are transferring that quality to the side of the Boers, and history may come to curse us as it has long since cursed Spain."
    As to the prolongation of the war, he attributes it to the burning and pillaging committed in the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, giving his authority for the statement, and then he goes on to say, referring to the recent hangings—
    "I hear privately that the Maritzburg district—where Marais was executed—is seething with fury. It will yet be found that the execution of Coetzee and Marais was equivalent to the building of recruiting offices for the Boer commandos."
    Then the writer makes a statement about the peace negotiations, which I think is very significant—
    "Lord Kitchener has revealed to us how they (the Roers) are now willing to interpret independence. Offer them exactly that kind of Home Rule which the Liberal party tried to obtain for Ireland, and there is no doubt it would be wholeheartedly accepted."
    1034
    ["Name."] I do not think there is any objection to giving the name, but I must consult the writer first. This minister goes on to denounce the policy of unconditional surrender, and says that that is responsible for the prolongation of the war.
    The Colonial Secretary indicated that a period might arrive when we should treat the commandos in the field as murderers, and he quoted the proclamation of General McArthur to the Filippinos. That proclamation itself is sufficient proof that there is no ground for anything of the kind in this case. The very ground on which General McArthur proclaimed those men to be banditti was that their leaders never met together for conference. Within the last few weeks the Colonial Secretary himself has published documents showing that Schalk Burgher, Steyn, and the Boer generals in the field have had conferences. Those conferences are constantly going on. What will happen to our own men if this policy of shooting the Boers is carried out? Do hon. Members realise that during the last three months something like 1,000 of our men have surrendered to the Boers? If this policy is carried out it will end in the shooting of our men. This proclamation seems to me to be one of the most indefensible ever issued. It is neither the one thing nor the other. You must take the one view or the other. You may say the Boers are not belligerents, and treat them accordingly, but once you admit they are belligerents this proclamation becomes absolutely indefensible.
    Take the second part of the proclamation. We are to charge the burghers in the field for the maintenance of their wives and children in these camps. What is happening? We clear the country for military reasons; we take all the stock and grain; we go even to the length of destroying the agricultural implements, so that the people cannot possibly cultivate the land. But if for military reasons you deprive them of the means of livelihood and their food, you cannot afterwards say that you are not bound to keep them from starvation. We use their stock and food; our troops take the grain and forage on their farms; is any allowance to be made for that when we come to consider

    1035
    the bill for board and lodging? Surely it is only justice. ["No."]
    AN HON. MEMBER: It is not war.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, it is not war; I quite agree. But does the hon. Member mean to say that we should be justified in taking away all the food from their farms, and in leaving the women and children to starve in the wilderness?
    AN HON. MEMBER: We are justified in charging them for their keep.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Why take all they have got? All I can say is, if those are the principles upon which the Transvaal is to be governed, I am not surprised that the Boers are fighting to the last. It is a most extraordinary proposition. You may say that military reasons justify the clearing of the country, but you cannot say that you are not bound to keep the women and children from starvation. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the military situation. When a question was put to him he said he had already dealt with the military situation, but he carefully refrained from saying a word about what was happening in the Cape. We are voting money in this House to conduct the war. We are asked to condemn or approve of this proclamation, and why should we not know what is going on in the Cape? I asked how many Boers there were in the Cape, and I was told about 1,500. All the newspapers—and I am referring rather to the Unionist newspapers—state that there are about 7,000 or 8,000 Boers still in arms in the Cape. Is that statement true or is it not? Is it a fact that there are still only 1,500 armed men opposing us in Cape Colony? We are entitled to know the facts.
    The Colonial Secretary indicated that the war is coming to an end, and that the troops are returning to this country. Is he quite sure that he is not going to repeat the blunder of last December? The Prime Minister has referred to the war in South Africa as "the recent war." For electioneering purposes troops were sent back to this country, which included some of our best mounted soldiers, and what was the result? Why, a few months after that the war was worse
    1036
    than ever. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members opposite may contradict that statement, but I wish to point out that that was the opinion of Lord Milner, who said that it was worse than it had been for six months. [An HON. MEMBER: But you said "worse than ever."] Then I withdraw that statement, and what I meant was worse than it had been for six months. After some of the troops were sent home we found that the war was worse than it had been at any time for the previous six months. We are getting no information at all now as to what is happening in the Cape, and the Colonial Secretary refrained from giving us any information upon that subject. The right hon. Gentleman referred to surrenders in the Transvaal, but how many troops are there at the Cape? We ought to get that information before Parliament separates. There is only one department which has practically declared this war is over, and that is the Treasury. I say that as long as we have got to spend money at this rate in South Africa the war is not over. An estimate was made at the beginning of this year based upon the assumption that the war would be over at the end of July, but no troops have returned. [An HON. MEMBER: You have just told us they did return.] The Colonial Secretary says he hopes that in September a large number of troops will be able to return to this country. That shows that even now the Ministry recognise that there has been a grave miscalculation. The roads in South Africa are paved with miscalculations. We have had constant supplementary Estimates because the previously made Estimates were wrong, and I think we are entitled to ask the Ministry before we separate for some fuller information upon the situation in South Africa.
    MR. ASQUITH: This is the last occasion, or almost the last occasion, on which we shall have the opportunity, before the House separates for what may be a very long recess, of obtaining information and explanation from the Government as to the state of things in South Africa. I do not think any of us will regret it if we bring forward for explanation those

    1037
    points as to which there exists in the public mind either a deficient knowledge or a legitimate anxiety. In the very few observations which I propose to address to the House I shall say little or nothing about the past; I shall confine myself entirely to the situation which immediately confronts us and to those future arrangements, many of them necessarily provisional, many of them possibly permanent, which in all human probability will be initiated before this House reassembles. As regards the actual situation, while there have been wide differences of opinion among us both as to the origin and as to the conduct of the war, while there are still wider differences, I hope narrowing day by day, as to the choice of methods of solution, I am perfectly aware of this, that there is among men of all parties and all sections of opinion, both in this House and in the country, a practically universal and unanimous desire that at the earliest opportunity it shall be brought to an end.
    There are indeed many reasons in the recent development of events why we should wish to accelerate the finish. The conditions under which whatever remains of the struggle which is now being carried on are conditions which, as all history shows, are in a peculiar degree trying to the combatants and injurious to the country. We have heard something to-night about the laws of war. Those laws were framed not with a view to any such contest as now going on. They were in the main and in their normal operation adapted to a state of things where you have a considerable number of men on the one side or the other arrayed against each other, acting upon some definite plan of campaign, moving in more or less organised bodies, and subject in greater or loss degree to some kind of central control. That description does not in the least correspond with what is now going on in South Africa. You have a number of independent commanders operating forces, dwindling in numbers and diminishing in resources, over wide areas of an almost illimitable territory, and, although I am prepared to give them credit for the best intentions in the world, without those condiditions of discipline and that subjection
    1038
    to rule which in the long run differentiates a regular army of soldiers from a body of free-lances.
    On the other hand, if you look at our own men, although the conditions are not the same, they are certainly to some extent equally exceptional. No praise, I think, can be too high, no appreciation can be too warm of the great work which Lord Kitchener has done in South Africa. He has displayed, under conditions of almost unexampled difficulty, a combination of energy and patience, of zeal and moderation which will always entitle him to a high place among the great soldiers of this country. And what I have said of him I will say, and I am sure the whole of this House will say, with equal conviction of the officers and soldiers under him. In the conditions under which for the last nine months those soldiers have been carrying on their work, the chances of what is called military glory in the larger and wider sense have not been within their grasp, of the pomp and circumstances of war they have seen little or nothing. What has been their fate? They have been working in separate columns, marching and counter-marching along the veldt, rarely indulged in that which to the British soldier is the greatest opportunity and the greatest luxury, the chance of an open battle, the eyes of the world no longer fixed upon them and public attention diverted into an entirely different direction. I do not believe that in the whole history of British arms there is a chapter which deserves to be recorded with greater admiration than the simple, persistent doggedness with which these men and their officers, with none of the ordinary advantages of military operations, with no dramatie opportunity, have persevered in a work thankless and uncongenial to them, but in the highest degree not only creditable to them, but useful and beneficial to their country.
    They will go on, as we know, for as many weeks, and as many months, and as many years as the campaign may last; but without any disparagement to the splendid qualities they have displayed, there is no man among us who has a real regard both for the moral and physical conditions of our Army who is not most anxious that this intolerable burden should, as soon as possible, be removed.

    1039
    What is the conclusion which I draw from this? It is this, that there is no step whatever that is consistent, or not inconsistent with the usage of war, and with the rules of humanity, that we ought not gladly to face and to advocate for the purpose of bringing this controversy to an end. Well, what is the Government doing, what steps are they taking for the purpose of bringing about that which we all desire, for which we all aim, and which we all approve? A good deal has been said in the course of the debate about the proclamation which at the instance of the Government has been issued by Lord Kitchener. If I took the same view of the facts, I should feel that there was immense force and weight in the considerations derived from international law which were urged earlier in the evening by my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire. But I must state my difference of opinion with him quite frankly. I do not take the same view of the facts. In my judgment there is no question of international law involved here at all.
    I listened carefully to the explanation that was given by the Colonial Secretary in reply to my right hon. friend, and the proclamation, as I understand it, does not assume a denial of the rights of belligerents to those who are still in arms against us. If it did I should certainly take exception to it, although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the time may come, we may even be within measurable distance of it now, when the character of the resistance opposed to British arms may be such that you can no longer treat those who are opposed to us as belligerents, but must look upon them as in some different category. As the right hon. Gentleman says, however, that time has not yet arrived. Therefore we must leave that out of the question. No issue as to the rights of belligerents is really involved. What, then, is the real meaning of the proclamation? As I understand it, it is this. These territories are now a part of His Majesty's dominions, persons who within those territories are arrayed in arms against us are at this moment de facto and de jure His Majesty's subjects [Nationalist cries of "No."] yes, His Majesty's subjects. I need not say that the whole responsibility for the proclama-
    1040
    tion rests with the Government, but it is neither more nor less than this, it is a warning to the people who, within His Majesty's territories, and being his. Majesty's subjects, are in arms against the forces of the Crown that unless by a particular date they surrender to His Majesty's Government they must consider themselves as liable to punishment and expulsion.
    It is a total mistake to suppose that the proclamation has the force of law; no Minister in this country has the power by putting on a piece of paper the sentence of banishment to make that sentence effective against any part of His Majesty's subjects. What the proclamation really amounts to is this, and in this respect it corresponds, I think, to a large extent with what was done at the end of the Franco-German War with regard to the inhabitants of Alsace. The proclamation says to these people, you must make your choice; if by the date fixed you surrender, well and good; if you do not, we warn you that local legislation will be initiated for the purpose of doing what was done to the inhabitants of Alsace who did not choose to come in under the proclamation on terms, banishing you from the territory to which you no longer have any claim. I emphasise this point for two reasons—first, because not only as a Liberal, but as one in favour of our forms of Constitution, I should demur with an emphasis that cannot be exaggerated to any assumption on the part of the Executive Government that they had the right by a paper proclamation to banish from any part of His Majesty's dominions any number of His Majesty's subjects. That is not the power that rests with the Executive Government.
    I say this, in the second place, because before the warning given by that proclamation can be put into practical effect legislation will have to take place, local legislation, legislation which in every stage can be discussed, and which even when it has been passed into law is capable of amendment, revision, and even reversal. But, looking at the proclamation from that point of view, I express my opinion that there is no danger of either international or constitutional law being infringed, and, as far as I can

    1041
    judge, it is not consistent with the usages of war or the dictates of humanity. But the question of policy is entirely a different matter. Here, of course, we who criticise from the outside the contents and effect of the proclamation have not the advantage of the special knowledge which is within the reach of His Majesty's advisers. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself adopted a very sanguine tone as to its immediate effect, and I confess myself that I do not feel that it will produce any large number of surrenders, but I hope that my scepticism may prove to be unjustified. But, whether that be so or not, we cannot predict what the future may be. So far as it goes, I, for my part, am prepared to accept it—I do not say that I welcome it—as a step which may possibly conduce to that which I think ought to be the governing end to us all, namely, the acceleration of the end of the war. I hope that the Government are not going to be content with this proclamation. I should like to have, and I hope we shall have before the debate is closed, some rather more definite and explicit statement from the Government as to what is being done, apart from the proclamation, for the purpose of bringing the war to an end.
    We are told that a large number of troops are going to be brought back from South Africa. I do not complain of that. I think that probably there are a large number of troops there who must necessarily be what is called stale, who have served there over two years under conditions of unexampled hardship, and who are now entitled to relief. I am not sure that there are not a certain number of troops who, perhaps, ought never to have been sent. However that may be, and accepting the necessity, as I do, of a large and considerable withdrawal of the actual force on the spot. I do think that we are entitled to have from the Government some more definite statement than has yet been given in the course of the debate that, after discounting the proclamation and giving its greatest or least effect—whichever you please—there will remain in the circle of military action for the purpose of concluding this war such a force of mobile and efficient troops as are adapted for the end in view. We have poured
    1042
    troops into South Africa almost without stint in number, but I am not at all satisfied, even at this moment, that we have sufficiently grasped the real conditions of the problem.
    I think I may mention as an illustration, by way of explaining my meaning, the new Yeomanry sent to take the place of the old Yeomanry, which was a very good force, composed of excellent men, who rendered a very fine account of themselves. I am not at all satisfied from all the information that reaches me, and from inquiries that I have made, that the new Yeomanry sent to take the place of the old, recruited up hill and down dale, in the highways and byways of the country, was in any sense a force capable of adequately or worthily succeeding the men who preceded them, of which any commanding officer in South Africa now would say were a real accession to the fighting strength of the army. That is a point on which I hope we shall have some satisfactory assurance from the Government before this debate is over. But the main thing, as I have said, as to the actual situation is to choose the best means open to us to bring the war to an end; and if the Government, in addition to their proclamation, can satisfy the House and the country that such a force as I have indicated is there and will continue to be maintained there until the war is over, I do not for myself doubt that these brave men, who, in what they conceive to be a good cause, have fought for months and years against desperate odds, will yield, as in the end they must yield, to the inevitable, with the knowledge that when the surrender takes place the Government of this country is bound as much by considerations of policy as of honour to give them the most generous terms it is possible for statesmanship to grant.
    I pass from that to another matter, not referred to in the debate, and upon which I think we ought to have definite assurances before Parliament dissolves—namely, the future arrangements for the administration of the annexed territories. I should like, in the first place, to know with more explicitness than anything yet given to us what the Government propose as regards the civil administration of the two Republics.

    1043
    We know that Lord Milner is to be High Commissioner, and I for one, as I have said many times before, have the utmost confidence in his administration. But it is not the least use having in supreme command and at the head of the administrative machine a man in whom you have confidence unless the subordinate and delegated powers are carefully watched. As regards the Transvaal, we have the Chief Justice and the Attorney General, men of proved reputation and capacity; but I should like to know more than anything yet told us about the district magistrates who are to administer the civil administrative areas into which the colonies are to be divided. I am not speaking of the personnel; but the right hon. Gentleman should tell us what will be their functions, what degree both of administrative and judicial control they will exercise, and subject to what jurisdiction they will carry on their work. There is a still more important question. We shall see probably in the months before the House reassembles something in the nature of a social reconstruction of these colonies. ["No."] At any rate, the first stages of what must necessarily be a long, laborious, and anxious process.
    We have now 35,000 burghers as prisoners of war. Sooner or later they will have to be repatriated—taken back to their own country, and with more or less promptitude reinstated in the possession of their properties and farms. To anyone who looks to the future that must appear a most anxious question. What practical steps are to be taken in this process of repatriation? And what provision is to be made in the way of advancing money, and so forth, for the reacquirement, rebuilding, and restocking of their farms? There is on the Estimate a sum of £500,000 appropriated for this purpose. I very much doubt the adequacy of that sum. At any rate, we should like to know broadly and approximately how the money is going to be spent, under what supervision, by what machinery, and in what parts of the country.
    Another question quite as important for the future administration of these territories is the position of the native races. I have always thought—though my opinion is not universally shared by
    1044
    my hon. friends on this side of the House—that, quite apart from the injustice of the Uitlanders, the great blot and stain on the Boer Government in South Africa was its treatment of the native races. We had a debate recently on the question of the Pass Laws which regulate native labour in the mines on the Rand. I have always thought myself, and having listened to that debate I think the result was to show, that, whether by weakness or corruption, the laws passed by the South African Republic in relation to the natives were laws which it was impossible to defend. I do not think that there is any single respect in which the substitution of British for Boer government will have a wider or a more beneficial effect than in the substitution for these laws—badly conceived, imperfectly and unsympathetically administered—by the administration of a man of tried capacity like Sir Godfrey Lagden, whose function will be to stand on the one hand as protector of the natives between them and the white capitalists, and on the other to see that their rights and privileges are adequately secured.
    There is another branch of the question which has received insufficient attention, and on which we should be glad to get assurances from His Majesty's Government. I refer to that department of the law so important for the Rand which goes by the name of the Liquor Law. A law was passed by the Legislature of the South African Republic, which on paper was very stringent, dealing with the illicit supply of liquor to the natives. But it was habitually and systematically avoided; and it is indisputably proved that the sale of bad alcohol to native labourers habitually incapacitated no less than 12 per cent. out of a population of 88,000. It was not that the law was bad, but that it was inadequately carried out. Hon. Members who are familiar with the proceedings which immediately preceded the outbreak of war will remember the murder of a lady, the wife of a Wesleyan minister in that part of the world. That murder was supposed to have been instigated—and not, I fear, without some foundation—by persons interested in this illicit liquor traffic. That was only one, though perhaps the crowning and capital case, of many illus-

    1045
    trations of the social evils which resulted from the imperfect enforcement of the law. We know that the Rand is to be reopened, and that native labour is to resort there again. The Pass Laws, as we hope and believe, are to be modified in a humane and progressive sense. But that declaration of policy, satisfactory as far as it goes, would be rendered infinitely more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman could assure us that, as regards this important question of the supply of liquor to the natives, if the old Boer law is to be re-enacted, it is to be enforced with adequate administrative supervision. I have dwelt on these points in detail, which are of immense importance as regards the ultimate settlement of these territories, and I earnestly hope that on all these vital issues we shall receive satisfactory assurances.
    Looking largely and broadly at the future, it seems to me that there are three main things upon which for the next few months, at any rate, our efforts ought to be concentrated. The first is to bring the war to a prompt, satisfactory, and final conclusion. The next is to take such steps as are necessary to prevent the possibility of a recurrence of those dangers out of which the war itself originated. And the third is, both as regards the white and the native population, to lay, at any rate, the first stone in the foundation of what we all hope may be an enduring fabric of liberty and justice.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume it is quite unnecessary to assure the House or the right hon. Gentleman that I do not rise to reply to him in any polemical spirit. With the great mass of his observations, indeed with the whole of his positive statements, I feel myself in complete agreement so far as I know. And if I rise at all it is not with the view of replying to his argument, but solely with the view of answering those questions which he has put to us. The right hon. Gentleman began by paying a well-earned tribute to the work of the British troops in South Africa at the present time. He told us in eloquent language that they were now engaged upon a task which was despoiled perhaps to some
    1046
    extent by the scintillation which necessarily attended the earlier and more dramatic stages of the war, and he pointed out to us that they were, nevertheless, showing those great qualities of perseverance and endurance which deserve here the gratitude of our country. Sir, I think the troops deserve all the praise which the right hon. Gentleman has given to them, but I would say also that those qualities which he has so justly laid to their credit are no new qualities on behalf of the troops of this country. After all, in countless obscure contests in many parts of the world—I might perhaps specify particularly Burma, where for two years a dangerous and laborious, and in a certain sense inglorious, or, at any rate, not dramatic, war was carried on by the troops of this country—we have always counted, and we have counted with absolute assurance, on the fact that our troops do not depend upon the laudations which they may receive at home or the interest they may excite for the absolutely steady, continuous, courageous, and persevering persistence with which they carry out the duties entrusted to them.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me some questions about our policy with regard to the troops in South Africa, and I think some phrases which fell from him almost indicated doubt in his mind whether we have not settled on a policy of withdrawing troops irrespective of the military situation in South Africa. I can assure him and the House that that is not the ease. We have every reason to hope that we shall be able to withdraw troops from South Africa, and, while we withdraw troops from South Africa, to start those civil and peaceful pursuits which are both the earnest of peace and the greatest guarantee that peace is to be maintained. But unless the military situation makes such a course absolutely expedient from a purely military point of view, not a horse, or a man will be withdrawn from South Africa. It is the military situation itself which dominates the whole situation, and though we are of opinion that we can without doubt, or, at all events, in all probability, make a great reduction in the number of our troops, and at the same time, I will not say make a beginning, because a begin-
    1047
    ning has already been made, to increase the growth of those industries upon which the financial prosperity of the Transvaal depends—unless we see our way to do that the right hon. Gentleman and the House may depend upon it that we shall sacrifice nothing in the way of military efficiency.
    The right hon. Gentleman, following, I think, something that fell from the right hon. Baronet who spoke earlier in the evening, rather criticised the qualities of the Yeomanry.
    MR. ASQUITH: The new Yeomanry.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Which has recently been sent to South Africa. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the qualification, which no doubt appeared in his speech, between the new Yeomanry and the soldiers, because nobody has ventured to criticise either the training or the quality of those drafts we have sent out to keep the regiments up to strength in South Africa. But to return again to the new Yeomanry. I should say that it is the fact that that Yeomanry went out in an untrained condition. It went out in an untrained condition on the distinct advice of our military advisers in South Africa and here. Their view was that the training could be effected there, and I believe that the new Yeomanry are now, in many parts of the country, doing admirable service, and that probably in this House and out of it we shall speak of them in very different terms a month or two hence from those which some of the critics have adopted in the recent past. I do not know that I need say anything more, so far as the right hon. Gentleman's speech is concerned, with regard to the military situation.
    Questions have been showered upon us by those who say they ought to have an accurate view of the military situation before the House separates for the holidays. We have told them our view of the military situation. We have given them the information at our disposal, and I really do not know what more we can say which would enlighten them on the subject. But let it be remembered that, while it is comparatively easy to give an account of a military situation in which great organised forces are opposed to one another in a limited
    1048
    field, to give an account of a theatre of operations in which the enemy are scattered in small and disorganised bands, and separated from each other by large districts, is really a practical impossibility; and the idea of presenting to the House a tactical or strategical survey of the present situation really would be a practical impossibility. The House knows perfectly well that the enemy, diminished in numbers, deprived of their supplies and their ammunition, are divided into small bands who unite or dissipate as the military situation suggests, and I could not venture to give the House any account which would enlighten them, or which would add to the knowledge which they, in common with the Government, possess of the present military position.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is the position in the Cape?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The position in the Cape, undoubtedly, it is true, as has been said by more than one hon. Member, is less satisfactory than it is either in the Transvaal or the Orange River Colony. But, though less satisfactory in degree, it is the same in quality. It is, again, a contest between organised and disorganised bodies. It is still a contest between small bands who dissipate and scatter as soon as our forces approach them, who, no doubt, derive support and assistance from the inhabitants of the district in which they find themselves, who are in a very difficult country, and who, therefore, it is very difficult to hunt down, but with regard to whom "hunting down" is the word which appropriately describes the situation. It is not the strategical or tactical operations between two equally organised bodies constituting two hostile armies.
    I pass from the military situation to say one or two words in answer to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me. He thinks, in my judgment he quite rightly thinks, that the interest of the future is not a military but a social interest, and his anxiety is not so much as to the issue of the war as it is with regard to the procedure to be adopted by this country when the war has come to an end. But I would venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we really have given as

    1049
    full an account of our policy in this respect as the present situation renders it advisable to give. He knows, and the House knows, for my right hon. friend has clearly described it in previous speeches, that we propose to have a Governor, Lord Milner, with a Council in which there will be nominated members, and ultimately, I hope, as the transition to the full government of a self-governing colony, elected members. But that is in the future. He knows that we mean to govern all the white population with equal laws, and he knows that we mean to apply to the native population all those humanitarian principles which, I think, are dear to every party and every section of opinion in this country. With regard to the native laws, the right hon. Gentleman asked me two specific questions. One was what we mean to do with regard to the labour laws, and the other was what we mean to do with regard to the liquor laws.
    On the labour laws, it will be remembered by the House that we had a long debate only a few days ago, and I think my right hon. friend, in a speech which is probably fresh in the recollection of every man who heard it, explained the general policy which the Government mean to pursue in that matter. It is recognised on all hands that it is a delicate question. It is recognised on all hands that it is not a question on which formulae can be scattered over the House and embodied in speeches with reckless disregard of the peculiar circumstances and history of the Cape Colony. But it will be sufficient to reiterate and re-emphasise what my right hon. friend said in the clearest language, which was that, in the first place, we mean to reform and revise the labour laws, and, in the second place, that we mean to administer them with purity and with equity.
    As regards the liquor laws, my right hon. friend has been in communication with all those interested in the question—a question which it is admitted on all hands is vital to the future prosperity and civilisation of the native races of South Africa. Unquestionably the liquor laws were not well administered by the late Republic. Unquestionably, everybody who has looked into this subject is of opinion that the ordinary liquors which are imported by com-
    1050
    mercial agents should not, and cannot, be allowed to be sold to the natives, and we are already administering the population on that principle. I do not wish to deceive the House in any way, but I am given to understand that what is called Kaffir beer, a mild beer of native production, is not a thing it would be wise to totally prohibit. But as regards imported spirits as we know them, the various forms of "German gin" and other liquors of that kind, we are clearly of opinion that it is absolutely necessary to put the sale of such death-dealing instruments under the severest restrictions. I do not know that there is any other question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked me which requires an answer.
    Is it necessary for me, in conclusion, to emphasise once more what has been said over and over again from these benches, and has been re-echoed, I believe, from many platforms in all parts of the country—namely, that neither the Government, nor the party to which the Government belong, nor the country at large are animated in the smallest degree by a vindictive spirit against those who are ranged against us in the field? We think—we on this bench at all events think—that the war has been unduly prolonged—unduly prolonged not from the point of view of our interests, but from the point of view of the interests of these Republics—these colonies. Let me say in that connection that we do not think that the difficulty, when peace has once been restored, of bringing back civilisation and industrial pursuits will be so great as the right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose. After all, the rural population of these countries does not belong to the highly organised communities with which we are most familiar. The amount of public loans that will be required in order to enable them to resume their pastoral pursuits is not so great as, perhaps, some people suppose; nor is the difficulty of reinstating them in their farms under reasonable conditions such as need make the administrator of the Transvaal or those in this country who are responsible for supervising the administration of the Transvaal feel that they have before them an insoluble problem. I do not believe that will prove to be a great difficulty. If it does not, if as soon as the war is

    1051
    terminated the arts of peace begin to flourish, if farms begin to be re-stocked and re-built, if the great industries of the Rand again flourish, I think our present critics and future historians will be astonished at the rapidity with which not merely the former degree of prosperity of these communities is attained, but a degree of prosperity to which they have been wholly a stranger. A degree of wealth which they have never known will prove how easy it may be under good Government, with free institutions, with equal rights, to restore a country which has been devastated through all these months by the passage of armed bands from end to end. In that hope I think this House of Commons may separate for the holidays. I think we may reasonably expect that when next year we reassemble to consider these high questions of policy we may find that warlike operations have practically ceased, that the arts of peace have begun to resume their sway, and that already we have no small promise of that future harvest of prosperity which I confidently anticipate from British rule.

    IRELAND—EVICTED TENANTS; POLICE AND PUBLIC MEETINGS; POLICE MANUFACTURED CRIME; BELFAST DISTURBANCES.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am about to ask the House to turn to another subject of a less exciting character than that which we have been discussing. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place, because it is upon the Irish question that I wish to make a few observations. I was glad also to observe that he was in his place during a portion of the debate on the South African War, for there is a certain analogy between some of the points in that debate and the question to which I am about to call attention. It seemed to be common ground between the two sides of the House that a certain amount of money would have to be granted in these new colonies for the purpose of enabling Boer farmers to resume the occupation of their holdings and their houses. There was some difference of opinion as to the amount of money that would be required, but the lowest estimate according to the spokesman of the Government was £500,000.
    1052
    The question to which I allude also refers to the loss which has fallen on the victims of a war. It was not a war in the open field, but one of those unhappy disturbances which precede land reform in Ireland. It would be unpardonable on my part to enter into a history of the plan of campaign with the tenants. Everyone in the House has heard of that history, and I dismiss it with this observation, that up to a certain period of the land legislation a large body of tenants were as lease-holders excluded from the benefits of the legislation, and the Government of that day showed no inclination whatever to include that large body. It was under such circumstances that a number of these leaseholders determined to bring pressure on the Government to get their grievances considered and remedied. After a time the Government did give the leaseholders the benefit of the land legislation, but in the meantime a certain number of the tenants who had joined this movement had been evicted and a certain number of them are still out of their holdings. It is to the case of these leaseholders that I wish to call attention. The Chief Secretary knows that the number of these tenants has gradually diminished, and I would be glad if he could inform the House if that reduction was due entirely to friendly settlements between the landlords and these tenants.
    I press on the Chief Secretary to try by every means in his power to induce, I might almost say force, a settlement on the landlords and tenants so that the number of these homeless and poverty-stricken tenants should entirely disappear. I do not think any man in tffe House would disagree with me in saying that there could not be a more wretched position than that of the tenants on the Campaign estates. They live for the most part in wooden huts of two rooms, and in these rooms families of considerable dimensions have to be accommodated. They have no means of subsistence except such as is given to them by voluntary subscriptions, and these are shifting sands on which the life of anyone should found itself. I have heard from some friends who live in these districts as to how these poor people exist, and I would implore the Chief Secretary to visit these Campaign estates,

    1053
    and with his own eyes and ears acquaint himself with the condition of these people. They are to be seen sometimes haunting the graveyards and the chapels, praying for some relief from the hopeless and terrible position into which they have fallen. I will not argue whether these people have fallen into that position from their own fault or not. I am in this situation, that these people must be regarded either as heroes or victims; but I would say that every effort should be made to extract them from the miserable state in which they are. This question cannot now be settled by force either on the one side or the other; it must be by amicable agreement, and the pressure which the Chief Secretary can bring to bear. I verily believe that if the Chief Secretary were to use all the influence at his disposal—political, social, and personal—by the time Parliament met next year he would be able to announce that this question was at an end, and that every Campaign tenant would be with the full consent of the landlords restored to his holding. I refer especially at this moment to the tenants on the Luggarcurran estate, the property of Lord Lansdowne, who is a member of the Ministry and a man of large means, and a settlement could not affect him from a pecuniary point of view. I have sufficient confidence that his Lordship would be willing to make some pecuniary sacrifice to relieve these poor tenants from their misery and restore them to their holdings. And if he did so it would be a good example to other landlords to come to terms with their tenants. I would appeal to the hon. Member for Armagh whether he seriously thinks the planter is a first-class tenant. As a rule the planter, who was called an emergency man, was neither by training nor temperament inclined to settle down on the land as a hard-working farmer. He is a soldier to a certain extent in retreat, and who would not regard it as a hardship to be relieved of his position as a temporary settler on the land. These planters have not in any part of Ireland succeeded, and day after day they are entering into the bankruptcy court. I pass from that estate with this final observation, that I believe if the tenants there got their opportunity from the Marquess of Lans- 1054
    downe to buy out their holdings, the question might be settled with hardship to nobody, even to the planters.
    I must say I am a little less hopeful as to the next estate—that of the Marquess of Clanricarde. As a matter of fact the Marquess of Clanricarde drew £20,000 a year from that district, which he never visited except for a few hours to honour the remains of his mother. I do not want to make allusion to this gentleman more rancorously than I can possibly do; but I appeal to every Irishman in the House, whatever his political principles may be, whether, so far as his duties as a landlord are concerned, that gentleman has not played an ignoble part compared with most of the landlords of England and Scotland. He has never given a subscription to any worthy object or charitable institution in the district, and he is of that type of landlord which, to a large extent, is responsible for the disrepute into which the landlords in Ireland have fallen. I am in hope, however, that the Chief Secretary, by the exercise of his well-known moderation, may be able to bring pressure to bear on the Marquess to come to a settlement with his tenants. I believe the tenants are only too willing to give reasonable terms for restoration to their homes; and what possible good can it do to the Marquess of Clanricarde to keep these farms so long empty, except for the gratification of an ignoble spirit of revenge. I am afraid I must say that a spirit of vindictive, unchristian, and almost vituperous revenge regulates the whole proceedings of that landlord. I am told that a tenant in another part of the country who had been absolutely unable to make a living, on account of his want of skill and industry, had come to the Marquess of Clanricarde and had been welcomed to the possession of two large farms from which two Campaign tenants had been evicted. I ask the House whether it is fair to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, not to speak of the tenants and landlords, to keep this foul cancer alive, when a little good feeling and good sense could settle the whole question in a week or a fortnight. I think the right hon. Gentleman might approach this question in the same spirit as his colleague the Colonial Secretary proposed to treat with

    1055
    the men who have been fighting against us in South Africa for the last two years, and who have cost this country so much blood and treasure. These men are at the close of the war to be met in the spirit of an irenicon, and to be given a sum of money with which to start the world again. I ask that the same spirit should regulate the proceedings in regard to the victims of the land war in Ireland.
    I would have liked to have said a few words in regard to a subject which is becoming alarming. I mean the steady and large drain of the population of Ireland by emigration. This is a question which is at last rousing the people of all classes, who are asking themselves whether the Irish nation is going to perish off from the face of the earth. At this hour I cannot do more than express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his duty in his responsible position, and will take such measures as will make Ireland a country in which the people can live and prosper.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I rise to take part in the discussion on this Bill, because an opportunity is being given to refer to some matters of grave importance to Ireland which was refused to us earlier in the session. The time given to the discussion of the many matters relating to Ireland has been so limited, and the privileges of its representatives so curtailed during this fruitless session, now drawing to a close, that I heed offer no excuse to the House for trespassing on its time on this occasion. It is well known to the thoughtful in this assembly that the people of our country have experienced many wrongs and persecutions, and have been given few chances of ventilating their grievances, particularly in this House. I intervene in the discussion with feelings of pain and disappointment—pain because it is necessary for the representatives from Ireland to have to fall back on this course in order to ventilate the wrongs from which their people suffer at the hands of a Government which tries to rule them against their wishes; and disappointment, because at one time I foolishly entertained the hope that the present Chief Secretary, who, above all others, is responsible for the government of Ireland, would try to right the many wrongs inflicted on our race by his pre-
    1056
    decessors, who were Englishmen by blood and connection, and who ruled us from the standpoint of conquerors who had given their adversaries a fall, but who were afraid, if for a moment they were to relax the knee-on-the-chest policy, those adversaries would become once more strong and powerful enough to demand the full restoration of the rights and privileges which they enjoyed before the advent of force and corruption which have been practised in the government of our unhappy country. I therefore desire to join with the other Members of the Irish party who have entered their protest against the administration of the law in Ireland as carried on by the present Chief Secretary, because I have been on various occasions an eyewitness to acts of violence and illegality committed by those who are entirely responsible for the impartial administration of the law, and who dare not do anything without the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. Some time ago I went to Gara Hill, near Athenry, in the county of Galway, for the purpose of addressing a public meeting and advocating the principles of the United Irish League, which is a perfectly legal organisation, and the constitution of which is based on the principles of liberty, justice, and equality. Without even the slightest notice, the people were set upon and batoned and brutally treated. I myself was batoned in the most wanton manner, and so roughly treated that my clothes were torn and my limbs bruised. Some time afterwards another meeting was called there, which I attended, and although no proclamation of any sort or kind was served either on the promoters of that meeting or myself, the same tactics were pursued, and in my presence a young man named Finnerty was set upon and throttled by the district inspector, surrounded by a large number of constables, and his head almost smashed with baton blows, without having given any provocation whatever. So eager were the police to follow the example of their officer that they actually batoned one another in the mad rush to distinguish themselves! Several others were also attacked, with the result that the meeting was prevented from being held there; but we succeeded in holding it a mile further on. Only a few

    1057
    months ago I was going from Mayo to Ballinrobe, in my own constituency, and when passing through Robeen a number of my constituents met me, but the police, anticipating that I might speak there, were in full force, and by violence attacked the people, jostled and dragged myself about, and followed us about from place to place, armed to the teeth, just as if we were expected to attack life and property, or do something of such a violent character that the ordinary law would not be able to cope with us afterwards. On two subsequent occasions I visited my constituency with similar results. I was prevented from speaking to those who sent me here to represent their views and carry out their wishes—prevented by force, which if attempted to be used in this country against the representatives of the people, or the people themselves, would arouse such a storm of indignation as to sweep from power the Government that would tolerate for twenty-four hours the disgraceful state of affairs that exists in Ireland. Some time ago I attended a meeting in the Queen's Hall in London, and outside that hall I saw such provocation given to the police who were on duty in the vicinity that led me to the conclusion that if one-twentieth part was given in Ireland the people would have been shot down like dogs. In different parts of Ireland, wherever the people try to come together and agitate peaceably for an improvement in what everybody must admit is their wretched condition, they are continually set upon by the servants of the Crown, who are put in motion by the orders of the right hon. Gentleman, who has taken the responsibility of governing Ireland, and whose action we were prevented from discussing at the proper time, but to which something may be said on the present occasion.
    I am not the only victim to the brutal enforcement of English rule in Ireland. It is an historical fact that on the very day the right hon. Gentleman took office, his coming was celebrated by streams of blood spilled at Wicklow, where some of the most prominent and respected members of the Irish party were present, and, I believe, attacked. Everywhere the forces of the Crown are used against the Nationalists; but nowhere are they
    1058
    used against Orangemen and landlord bullies, who commit the most violent crimes. Take, for instance, the case of Mr. Phibbs, of Sligo, about whose condition there seems so much anxiety on the part of the Government, and such shrieking for coercion on the part of some intolerant and bigoted newspapers in England, which are written by men who are as ignorant of the real state of affairs in Ireland as they are of what is passing in the minds of Botha and De Wet at the present moment. There has been a wonderful outcry against those who refuse to assist this Mr. Phibbs to continue robbing the people of that locality, and whose action is calculated to assist in driving away the remnant of our population that are able to go to any other country. He is one of the loyal minority, and as such will of course be supported against the people by the present Chief Secretary. Let us look for a moment at the other side of the picture, and ask whether the same howl has gone up from the intolerant, ignorant press, and whether the same anxiety has been displayed by the Government to protect Catholics against the Orangemen in Belfast, who, without any provocation, murder their Catholic fellow-workmen, smash their heads, throw them into the river, wreck their houses, threaten their lives, and through the instrumentality of persecution and outrage deprive hundreds of human beings of the means of livelihood, and of the right of those who profess the religion of the majority of the people of Ireland to pursue their ordinary occupations. All this has been done under the eyes of the Chief Secretary, and with his knowledge, if not with his consent. I say that unless he takes the proper steps to protect the Catholic citizens of Belfast, he is as guilty as the Orangeman who fires the rivet at his fellow-workman. In one case if an Orangeman is even boohed at because he outrages the feelings of the people, the forces of the Crown, horse, foot, and artillery, are brought to his relief, while in the other case innocent Catholics may be murdered and persecuted, and yet not even a policeman will be sent to patrol the place where this unbridled devilry is carried on with impunity. Is that impartial administration of the law by the gentleman who is responsible

    1059
    for carrying it on in Ireland? Is that condition of affairs likely to give our people any confidence either in English law or English Ministers? In different parts of the country prosecutions are instituted on trumped-up charges, many of which are so shifty in their character as to be scouted out of court. Women have been prosecuted and imprisoned time after time for doing nothing more than making a stand for the home from which their orphans have been evicted, while thousands of pounds have been wasted in giving police protection to grabbers who have the land from which these women have been evicted. It is a crime in the eyes of Englishmen to put a common land-grabber to any inconvenience, but it is no crime to turn adrift widows and orphans with no protection or means of support whatever save the hated workhouse. I have no hesitation in saying that the law in Ireland is not administered for the welfare of its people, but is turned into an engine of persecution against them for the purposes of the Government. It is a well-known fact that the Irish police are supposed to be used for the maintenance of the law, but when I relate one or two cases showing the way the law is administered over there and the uses to which the police are put, I think reasonable Members of this House will not wonder at Irishmen looking upon it with the contempt it deserves.
    In the county of Leitrim a young man named McGoohan was going to his home one night, and on his way was arrested by a police sergeant named Sheridan, and charged with the terrible crime of cutting the tails of cattle. The usual farce of trying a man charged with an agrarian offence in Ireland was gone through, and he was convicted, and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Time went by, and his sentence, savage though it was, expired, and his first act, after being released, was to make an affidavit declaring his perfect innocence of anything in connection with the charge. The police sergeant was transferred to county Clare, but he did not stop his villainous work, for there he made what turned out to be a clumsy attempt at planting threatening notices, which cost him his position, and which were no doubt intended to pave the way
    1060
    for outrage and murder by the paid agents of the Government. I have reason to believe that the Government made some inquiries into the Leitrim case, with the result that they are now considering what might be suitable compensation for the time spent in prison by this innocent man.
    There is another case of the police being used for the encouragement of crime in the infamous attempt of Sergeant Sullivan to induce young men in the neighbourhood of Mulranny to fire into the house of a man named Kelly. Happily this attempt failed, with the result that the complicity of the Government in the case was proved. This same Sergeant Sullivan and two constables about the same time planted poteen on a poor man named Mulgrew, prosecuted him, and succeeded in getting him imprisoned for three months in Castlebar gaol. One of the police engaged in the business afterwards boasted that he got the poteen at a place called Glenhest, and put it where the others found it. For this dirty work Sullivan was rewarded by being removed from the wild West to a choice station near Dublin, and not only was he rewarded in that way, but it would appear that he is specially free from the punishment due to crime. Since his transfer a charge has been made against him which forced the county inspector of Meath to suspend him from duty, but instead of proceedings being taken against him the matter was hushed up, and to-day he is wearing the uniform of a police officer instead of the uniform of a convict in one of His Majesty's prisons. I will return to the poteen question by referring the House to the action of the Turlough, Balguary, and Pontoon police in the county of Mayo. Here the police saw there was an absence of crime, and an obnoxious man in the locality, inspired no doubt by the police, stated that he would tax the district by bringing in an extra police force. How did they set about the work? A conference of police sergeants from these three barracks was held, with the result that one of them, who has since been promoted, actually gave money to a poor man in the district (who is prepared to prove it) to enable him to buy the material for illicit distillation. According to a Return made at the instance of the Chief Secre-

    1061
    tary, as the result of a question put by me, a large number of seizures took place during that year, but no one was prosecuted, as the utensils were actually procured first by the police, and then seized by them, and duly reported. I can produce the men who saw them making the preparations, and who immediately went and broke into pieces the utensils for making illicit whisky. It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that the custodians of the law on these occasions were members of the United Irish League, and the criminals were the men who were paid to enforce the law.
    I will give you another proof of the way the law is administered in Ireland. Within the past few weeks, two youths were prosecuted in Ballyhaunis for alleged boohing at the son of a notorious land-grabber named Frank O'Boyle. The police served a summons on a witness named Delaney who swore that they coached him in what he should say for the prosecution, and that he was actually swearing to their orders. I will quote a report of the proceedings taken from the Connaught Telegraph—
    "Willie Delaney, a sharp looking youngster, son of the herd on the island farm, who accompanied young O'Boyle on the evening of the 5th July, was then sworn, and he corroborated the evidence of the latter. The crowd called them the names already mentioned, and also cried out, 'Hi, for the dog, boys!' He identified the defendants as being in the crowd, and he saw Pat Carney carrying the old coat as a flag. Cross-examined by Mr. Barry: 'You are a cool young fellow, and you can swear fairly well?' 'I can, sir.' 'You would swear what you were told. Anyone having an interest in you would tell you what to swear here, and you would swear as directed. Is not that so?' 'Yes, sir.' 'You would swear what your father or O'Boyle or any of the police would tell you?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Who was speaking to you about this case?' 'I don't know.' 'You don't know? Was there anybody speaking to you about it?' 'There was.' 'Who was it?' 'Constable Searson; he was speaking to me down on the farm.' 'He came to have a talk with you, and I suppose he shook hands with you?' 'He did, sir.' 'He mentioned the names of Carney and Boyle?' 'He did, sir.' 'So I thought. You are an excellent Crown witness. I suppose he told you what to swear here against them?' 'He did, sir.' 'He told you it was your duty as the herd of the boycotted grabber to come in here and swear everything against Carney and Boyle?' 'He did, sir.' 'I am really delighted that the Crown handed you over to me. What did he say to you?' 'He said I should have to go to the court and swear what I was wanted against those two boys.' 'You have sworn what he told you to swear for the purpose of the prose-
    1062
    cution?' 'Yes.' 'Because O'Boyle is un popular in the district, because he is not liked by the people?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Did Constable Searson know the reason why O'Boyle was not liked?' 'Yes.'"
    On this evidence they were bound over to keep the peace, or in default to spend a month in Castlebar Gaol. What a travesty of law! What a mockery of justice! Did they content themselves with that? No. After the two youths were convicted, the district inspector and the police surrounded them in the barracks, and tried to terrify them into giving bail to be of good behaviour, although they were determined to go to prison for the month, as they believed they were innocent of the charge against them. At first the boy Carney refused, and seeing no chance in that quarter, the district inspector went to the boy's father, and traded on his paternal feelings by pointing out the terrors of imprisonment. Mr. Carney told him in reply that the police had the same means at their disposal for getting up a fresh prosecution, and declined to give his consent. But this ingenious inspector, not to be baffled in his designs, gave his solemn promise that they would not be interfered with in future, unless the police could catch them by the hand in the act of committing what he alleged was a breach of the law. Now, I want to know from the Chief Secretary for Ireland what object this district inspector had in view, or whether he was acting in accordance with instructions received? Did this official and his subordinates then cease their evil work? No. A sergeant named Lyons, and a constable named Searson, accompanied the land-grabber into the licensed premises of Mr. Delaney, who is prominently connected with the United Irish League, although they had over forty other licensed houses between the barrack and Mr. Delaney's, clearly for the purpose of trumping up a case against him, and depriving him of his licence, because of his unwavering Nationalist principles. The land-grabber demanded a glass of whiskey in the presence of this sergeant, with note-book in hand, and when the whiskey was supplied, so disappointed was this busy-body sergeant, that he ran round the town pointing out to everybody that Mr. Delaney supplied a grabber, and asked some of

    1063
    the people what they thought of Mr. Delaney now. I want to kno can the law be respected when its officers act like blackguards and ruffians, thirsting for vengeance against Nationalists? When this creature, failed in his attempt to get Mr. Delaney in his meshes to make a case against him at the next licensing sessions, he went round to the members of the League, trying to arouse their ire against Mr. Delaney, but I am glad to learn that the people have treated these creatures as they deserve, with the greatest contempt.
    I ask, Is that the way the law is administered in England and Scotland? No. Such scoundrelism is reserved for use in Ireland only, where the police know what pleases their superior officers and masters in Dublin Castle. Of course I cannot say whether work of that kind is the policy of the Chief Secretary. But there can be no doubt whatever that it is the policy of responsible police officers in the West of Ireland to encourage the commission of agrarian crime by their subordinates to blacken the United Irish League and get up an outcry against it. Within the past few weeks there is a sort of reign of terror in the Killmaclassar district, near West-port. There is a sort of martial law there. Some of the leading inhabitants cannot move night or day without being "shadowed" by police. Even the local district inspector spends whole nights at the doors of those people. And why? Simply to cover the ruffianism of some policeman who made an effort at spiking meadows in the locality. Like other blunderers, this uniformed "Captain Moonlight" wasn't smart enough, as he used a peculiar kind of iron peg that was in use in the Brockagh Barracks. It is time really that the Government should at once grapple with this grave question by granting the public inquiry into the acts of official blackguardism so often called for by the Mayo County Council, several district councils, and the different divisional executives and branches of the United Irish League in the country. I could give the House a large number of such cases in different parts of Ireland, but I think I have given quite enough to prove the policy of those who rule Ireland from Dublin Castle and Westminster. Apart altogether from the
    1064
    doings of the police, who, after all, are mere instruments in the hands of our rulers, and who do this terrible work to qualify themselves for promotion, we have the judges of the land forgetting the solemnity and dignity of their positions, assuming the role of Crown prosecutor once more and shrieking, as it were, with the vehemence of a Judge Keogh, for the blood of those charged before them for political offences.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in referring in that manner to the judges.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: We have leading Crown Prosecutors engaged in the unholy work of jury-packing, wherever a man is charged with being engaged in the furtherance of the national cause. The policy pursued by England in its government of Ireland has been a most ruinous one. During the past fifty years about 4,000,000 of our people have gone to other lands—going at the rate of well over 70,000 every year—and I am glad to say they have enough spirit to carry with them undying hatred to the Government that is the cause of their exile. The great war that is being waged in South Africa is not so destructive, so far as the numerical loss may be counted, as the drain of emigration from Ireland which is caused by the continued misgovernment of that country who do not know, nor care to understand, our people. Although light may be thrown on the way that things have been done in Ireland by English Ministers, who think it a duty to govern Ireland against the wishes of its people and their representatives, I fear it will have no beneficial result, as prejudice and social hatred are too deeply rooted in the ministerial mind to listen to anything coming from an Irish quarter. Many previous debates and Ministerial admissions have shown that not only the glorious constitution of England, but the rights of personal safety and private property, recognised by the ancestors of the Australian blacks who danced before the Duke of Cornwall the other day, are completely abrogated whenever the strange constituents of the few Tory members for Belfast take into their heads to indulge in an orgie of unbridled ruffianism.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order: That is not language which can be used in regard to hon. Members of this House.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I was not referring to hon. Members, but to constituents of the hon. Members for Belfast. A glance into the real origin of those recurring disturbances will explain the responsibility of the authorities controlled by the Chief Secretary. It may be stated as a fact that was notoriously of common knowledge long before the recent riots or the prosecutions, that language of the most ruffianly and most inflammatory character—language so vile, so filthy, so utterly abominable that the newspapers declined even to indicate its character when it was repeated in public was used from the steps of a Government building for years. Why were those ruffianly Orangemen allowed to use the steps of a public building when the Nationalists would not he allowed to use the courthouses built by their own money for the United Irish League meetings, or even by a district council in the discharge of its business if a cad of a local magistrate objected? Are not these further reasons for protesting against the Chief Secretary's policy of Irish administration? Why are not precautions taken against the repetition of this disgusting and inflammatory language? Why are the police in Munster and Connaught instructed and hired to listen at windows and keyholes and to insult and obstruct peaceable meetings of United Irish Leaguers, while this tornado of unmentionable filth was being poured into the public ear every Sabbath afternoon in a city garrisoned by 1,000 policemen? Why was not a Government reporter sent to these meetings, which were undoubtedly of a dangerous character, and addressed by this terrible ruffian Widdowes, who got ten years and five months imprisonment here and in America for committing an unnatural crime, while official reporters have been sent all over the country to United Irish League meetings which were without exception of the most peaceable character? Perhaps I may answer and say more of English impartiality as we know it. In Munster and Connaught a man's liberty is endangered and his county proclaimed if he refuses to speak
    1066
    to some person whom he rightly regards as an enemy to his class and his race. But in happy Belfast and on the streets of Portadown any foul-mouthed scoundrel can come forth into a public arena and level the grossest insults and the most outrageous calumnies at holy women whose devoted lives have been given to the care of the helpless and the sorely stricken and the little children, and against saintly men whose time and talents are spent in the service of their people, their church, and their God. But that is not all.
    There are other and even more significant facts in connection with these ever-recurring scenes of shame and violence in the city of Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman, whose administration in Ireland we impeach, knows of the existence of a scurrilous sheet called the Belfast Protestant, which I understand is produced under the direction of the vendors of the oratory I have described. This loathsome sheet is devoted from cover to cover almost to the circulation of libels and infamies more horrible and revolting than even those which these foul-mouthed authors are allowed to level against Catholic nuns and Catholic priests in the public streets and squares. The right hon. Gentleman has, I believe, seen this precious organ of the peculiar Protestantism professed by this leprous coterie of firebrands. He knows who prints it. He knows how it is circulated, or if he does not he could have made himself acquainted with the facts just as speedily as they could be transmitted over the telegraph wires. What has he done to stop the circulation—or rather distribution—of this pernicious source of bigotry amongst ignorant Orangemen in Belfast, and of hatred and ill-will between all classes of the community? Have thousands of police raised it all over Ulster? Or is it still untouched because the names of two of the Unionist representatives of Belfast figure prominently as generous subscribers to its funds, and the infamous propaganda it is carrying amongst the most violent sections of the people in cities and towns in Ulster? Or is it because his own policy has not been attacked as it has been attacked in the columns of the Irish People? Here in my place, and in the presence of the members of the

    1067
    Government, I say there is no law in Ireland, as law is understood in countries claiming to be civilised. The landlords and their henchmen, the jury-packing lawyers, the bailiffs, the sheriffs, and the police rule the south and west. Law and order in the north are absolutely subservient to the goodwill of the maddest gangs of bigots that ever disgraced human nature. And it is because these things are so, and that the Irish people and their representatives are face to face with such facts and circumstances every day of our lives, that I intervene in this discussion and protest against the continuance of a system of misgovernment which aims at nothing if it does not aim at the extermination of our Irish race.
    In my own native county, close on 10,000 men are compelled to leave home every year to live a life of constant drudgery and hardship, only to leave their wives and children at home in such wretched circumstances as to prevent them from getting the necessary food, clothing, or education to fit them for the life before them. And all this while tens of thousands of acres of the best land in the world are left unfilled for the benefit of a few greedy individuals. This is more of English law as we know it in Ireland, and the present Chief Secretary is undoubtedly responsible for the continuance of that wretched state of affairs. The other night, in reply to some questions, I heard the Chief Secretary say that in Belfast the police never carry arms except for purposes of ceremonial display. Well, as far as I have observed, they do nothing more than have ceremonial displays in the south and west of Ireland. Whenever I go to my constituency, there appears to be a great ceremonial display, for no less than from fifty to one hundred policemen and officers follow me, armed with rifles, bayonets, batons, and all the paraphernalia of war, without any necessity whatever, as I believe. I am one of the most moderate of men in my demands. I will take this opportunity of asking hon. Members of this House how would they like to be treated when they visit their constituencies as I have been when time allows me to visit mine-On the last occasion I was at Ballyhaunis two policemen were stationed above my
    1068
    hotel door, two others below the door on the opposite side of the street, while a etective-sergeant and a constable kept walking up and down before the door during the time I was there. What kind of a policy was that? The Chief Secretary also said that policemen could not go into Harland and Wolff's place in Belfast, because it is private property; but I say they had as much right to go in there as to go into the back yard of my hotel and keep guard on it after I succeeded in leaving the hotel unknown to the six who were set to watch me. Is that more of English law as we know it in Ireland? I may take the liberty of telling the Chief Secretary that the sweetness of tongue and emptiness of promise mixed, as it has been, with a great deal of the callousness and brutality of the worst of his predecessors which has so far characterised him, will no longer be tolerated. He must not try to ride two horses at the same time, or he will come down as great a failure as any of those who fail to accomplish that most impossible task of governing a nation against its people's will.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): It can hardly be expected that at this late hour of the night I shall be able to do full justice to the many points raised by hon. Members from Ireland. The hon. Member adduced a number of cases to prove that the police in Ireland were actuated by an unreasoning spirit of brutality towards the inhabitants of that country, and that, with the connivance of the Irish Secretary, they endeavoured to find fault with the United Irish League. The House will not be surprised to hear that I am not prepared to deal with all the cases to which the hon. Member referred, but among them I did recognise a number of old friends. There was the cross-examination of a boy. Is any reply needed to such a case? The boy dutifully replies, "Yes, Sir," to every question put to him by the cross-examining counsel, and I think any gentleman who has had experience of the law will agree that those questions were leading questions. If the hon. Member had read out the examination in-chief, no doubt we should have found that the answer was "Yes, Sir," to

    1069
    every question put by the other side, and that on re-examination the same simple method was followed. The reason more importance was attributed to the affirmative examination than the affirmative cross-examination is that the former was confirmed by the evidence of other witnesses, while the latter was absolutely uncorroborated. Then came the case of Sergeant Sullivan. The hon. Member said the sergeant was charged with an offence, and that the matter was hushed up. The charge was brought by a most disreputable character; it was closely examined into, and found to have not the slightest foundation. The sergeant was absolutely cleared, and yet upon that case the hon. Member not only attacked the constabulary, but attempted to involve the Government in a charge of supporting men who were unworthy of support, and of conniving at their offence, to the neglect of the proper maintenance of order in Ireland. I now come to the case of a man named McGoohan, who was convicted on a charge, and sentenced to two years imprisonment. I regret to say that that man was convicted on a false charge.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that sixty Catholics were ordered to stand by when the jury was being packed to convict him?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge of that fact, nor is it relevant to my argument. The charge made is that the Government habitually connive at the infamous administration of the law. I think I have fairly disposed of two cases, and cleared the police and the Government of any such imputation I am now dealing with the third case, in regard to which I openly state my opinion that the sergeant of police was guilty of infamous conduct, that he was a cunning and unscrupulous scoundrel, and that on evidence given by him an innocent man was sent to prison for two years. I instituted a most searching inquiry into that case; I left no steps untaken which would enable me to arrive at the truth. When I obtained proof, I directed that the innocent victim of this infamous action should be substantially compensated, and public reparation made to him.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: What compensation?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I prefer not to state the amount, but it is substantial. That illustrates the attitude of the Government towards so lamentable and rare an occurrence.
    MR. DILLON: Not rare.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I may say that a searching inquiry has been instituted into the records of any similar occurrences in this country, and compensation on the highest scale that can be discovered will be given. That is a very frank statement, and it is typical of the attitude of the British Government. ["Oh, oh."] There were three courses open to me with regard to this officer. There was no evidence on which this sergeant could have been prosecuted in a court of law. I might have said, "I am am dissatisfied with this sergeant's evidence. I will therefore remove him to another district. No charge can be brought against him on which a conviction could be secured; therefore I can take no further steps." Or I might have instituted a prosecution, knowing that no conviction could be secured. I think the best course was that of making a departmental inquiry, and dismissing the sergeant from the force, thereby inflicting upon him a very great punishment, as he loses his pay, his position, and his prospect of pension.

    I have dealt with the three cases I recognise in the long tissue of vehement denunciations, and if I had had warning of the others, doubtless I could have disposed of them in a similar manner. I do not charge the hon. Member with bringing forward these accusations without in some sense believing them to be true. I think he is deeply concerned over some of these agrarian disputes which unfortunately have raged in Ireland for many years, and which to a limited degree rage still. But I ask the House whether any solution to the Irish land difficulty is to be found in such an attitude as the hon. Member has adopted to-night? The case of Mr. Phibbs was mentioned. Let me tell the House the origin of that case. There is in Ireland a farm into which the surrounding tenants were permitted by the landlord to place certain capital. The tenants desired to buy that farm. There is no machinery in the Statute-book enabling them to do so. In order to secure their

    1071
    object, by what process of reasoning I cannot imagine, they withdrew their capital from the farm. I do not think that was a wise proceeding, and I doubt whether it was legal. The farm being left derelict of their own will and motion, another man offers to take it. It is let to him. That man is entitled to all the protection the law can give him. Apart from the illegality of subjecting that man to petty annoyance, and people in humbler circumstances who serve him to great oppression, it is stupidity. How can such action advance by one year or one day any satisfactory solution of the land question in Ireland? Is it not clear that if this illegal, wicked, and stupid war is waged, any such appeal as is made to me cannot be entertained by any Government which may happen to be in power? But fortunately these melancholy events, which at one time were spread over a large area of Ireland, are now confined to small districts, which can and will be dealt with. Therefore I have not altogether set on one side the hope that the Government may be able in the future to take up once more the difficult task of passing land legislation for Ireland which may hasten the solution of the difficulty which all desire. It is quite clear that you cannot deal with the Irish land question unless you banish from the social atmosphere of Ireland disorder and oppression. Only when that has been done can anybody hope to carry out this difficult task of reconstruction.
    The hon. Member for the Scotland Division opened his speech by trying to draw an analogy between some features in the Irish agrarian question and some features in the situation in South Africa. He pointed out that it is the policy of the Government when the war is over to give assistance to the citizens of the two republics to take up the pursuit of agriculture. Yes, Sir, when the war is over, and to those who have ceased to wage war. Everything turns upon that. The hon. Member instanced the case of the evicted tenants, who had taken part in the Plan of Campaign. That was a land war—I accept the description—a war the wisdom of which was doubted by many of the hon. Members who then sat on those benches. These derelict farms are the
    1072
    monuments of that war. Can those monuments be abolished unless every intention to renew that war has been abandoned? It is in no spirit of vindictiveness that I say it would be wrong to Ireland and wrong to Irishmen, who may be tempted to imitate those courses, to use exceptional State action to put back those evicted tenants until all parties in Ireland have abandoned any intention of renewing that war. In saying that I am but repeating what was said by the First Lord of the Treasury on a somewhat similar occasion. I will quote his words, because they give very accurately my own view of this matter. He said—
    "I for one should certainly not contemplate it—(that is, using the money and the legislative power of Parliament for this purpose)—with equanimity unless every sect or party would hold out to us the hope that we have seen the end of these things."
    If there is no prospect of the renewal of this warfare certainly it is to the interests of the Government to wipe out all traces of the warfare, of the past. But so long as there is a prospect of the renewal of this warfare—and I say this in no spirit of vindictiveness—the Government cannot come to the assistance of those who may be tempted to adopt this course in the future.
    I quite readily accept one sentence which fell from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. He said that this question could not be settled by force, and that the only way to settle it permanently was by amicable agreement. I accept that statement, and I say that I think no lasting good can be done in regard to the land question except by the co-operation of all those interested in it. I am profoundly convinced of the truth of that statement. If you can accomplish this object by means which are desirable and legitimate this may prove beneficial to Ireland. The hon. Member at the beginning of his speech claimed that the leaseholders had only entered into a legitimate combination for the benefit of the land. Does that statement not make us pause and reflect? The object of this agitation is simply to hunt out these leaseholders and take from them their land. [Nationalist cries of "No, no!"] But I know of cases of this kind. The difficulty in Ireland springs largely from the fact that a great

    1073
    part of Ireland is occupied by what I may call agricultural slums. The present First Lord of the Treasury is the first statesman who attempted to deal with these agricultural slums. In my opinion the only hope of a successful solution of the problem is by pursuing the line which my right hon. friend laid down, but how can we increase holdings that are too small if land which they might buy in the open market is being made the subject of illegal oppression and open disorder? Owing to economic disasters in the past, and owing to hasty legislation—I refer to the work of the Encumbered Estates Court—there are in Ireland many properties upon which it is no man's interest and in no man's power to take any steps to benefit such properties. We can only deal with that question by legislation, and yet I have in my mind a case which was referred to at question time. One of these estates is at present in the courts, and it is stated in this case that those who have the administration of this estate would be ready to sell one farm upon the estate to the occupiers in the neighbourhood. But what was done in this case? A meeting was summoned in order to intimidate the person who owns this farm. Can any court of law or any Government worthy of the name countenance a proceeding so disorderly and fraught with the most evil consequences? Why cannot this farm be bought by entering into negotiations for purchase by offering a fair price? I believe this can be done, and will be done in those parts of Ireland where we are not confronted with lawlessness and disorder. I recognise that at this time of the night I cannot discuss fully the Irish land question. In my opinion this is the first and the last question connected with the welfare of Ireland, and it deserves the earnest and the serious attention of all those who may cherish the hope that something may be done for the agricultural community in Ireland. But the Irish land question can never be solved so long as recourse is had to violence and disorder in preference to the more certain method of legislation by agreement.

    QUEEN'S COLLEGE PROFESSORS—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I
    1074
    have a question which I desire to put to the Chief Secretary connected with the Queen's College, Belfast, in reference to two appointments of professors which have been made there some little time ago. Those interested in Queen's College believe that some injustice has been done to these two professors who have been appointed, and the chairs they hold by the terms of their appointment. These appointments have been limited to seven years. I find that, without exception, the appointments to those very same chairs, three of which have been made in quite recent years, have been permanent appointments, and that the same thing has taken place in connection with appointments at Queen's College, Galway. I say that there is no reason whatever for this limitation. My right hon. friend told me that this was either a case of misapprehension or a misunderstanding, and I should like to ask him whether the misunderstanding arose from a recommendation made in Belfast, or whether it took place by some superior authority. I say that, apart from the fact that these appointments have been made, so far as my examination goes, permanent in Galway and Belfast without exception, there is no reason whatever for limiting them in Belfast, for neither in the new university of Birmingham or any other university is there to be found any analogy for limiting such appointments. Such limitations are contrary to the practice of the medical profession, and they must lead to inferior men applying for these appointments. I ask my right hon. friend to consider whether these men cannot be placed upon the same footing as their colleagues occupy in Cork and Galway.
    I want also to say a word on the question which has been raised with regard to the residual grant. I have gone into four or five instances of the non-payment of the balance of the residual grant, and I am convinced that an error has been committed by somebody in authority. The matter is a very complicated one, but I will put it broadly in this way. There are innumerable instances in which amounts which vary from three months to fifteen months in special instances are still owing, in my opinion, to national school teachers. My sugges-

    1075
    tion is that the Chief Secretary should appoint an independent accountant to examine the books. If it is an error in book-keeping they will not be satisfied by the opinion of the department which made this error. Therefore, I would ask him whether he cannot this time appoint an independent accountant to go into these intricate calculations. I believe that if my right hon. friend were to take that course it would go a very long way to allay the feeling of irritation which exists at the present time, for which I think there is a certain amount of justification, and which irritation has been created by the general dissatisfaction which at present exists. The new regulations are in my opinion very inadequate, and certainly they deprive the existing school teachers of the prospects of preferment which they had a right to look forward to, and which they could obtain in the past.

    RAILWAY SERVANTS' GRIEVANCES.
    *MR. BELL: I am sorry to have to detain the House for a few moments with the discussion of another subject, altogether different from that which we have been discussing to-night. It is a subject on which I believe I shall be able to elicit the practical sympathy of all hon. Members of this House, having regard to the very long hours we have been obliged to work this week in this Assembly. The question I am going to raise is as to the operation and administration by the Board of Trade of the Hours Act of 1893. The Hours Act of 1893 was the result of a Royal Commission, which sat for about, I believe, two years, to inquire into the hours of employment of railway servants. The Act was then passed as the result of that inquiry, its provisions being framed to give power to the Board of Trade in order that they might without friction or labour troubles inquire into the hours worked by railway servants upon complaints laid before them. I find now that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on 15th June last, when the Estimates were being discussed, made a statement which was not absolutely correct, and he will, I am sure forgive me for saying this, for I do not in the least impugn his veracity. The statement he
    1076
    made was doubtless in accordance with the information and advice supplied to him. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, eulogised the railway companies for the manner in which they themselves were reducing the hours of their employees, pointing out that for the year ending-July of this year—the report of which was published on the 3rd of August—it is shown that there were forty-one cases reported to the Board of Trade during the twelve months ending July.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): July last year?
    *MR. BELL: Yes, July last year. Now, I know the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly earnest in what he said, and that the Report was prepared by a gentleman in whom this country had absolute confidence, but who unfortunately is now deceased. I refer to Sir Courtenay Boyle. He states in his Report that—
    "The Report shows a continued decrease in the number of complaints made. The exact number of such complaints received during the year ended 27th July, 1900, was 41, as compared with 46 in 1890, 76 in 1897 and 156 in 1895. The steady fall in the number of complaints which has lasted continuously since the last-named year, may, I think, be taken as indicating a tendency on the part of the railway companies to watch the effect of the revision of hours and themselves to adjust their tables of working hours without waiting for representations from the Board of Trade."
    What I desire to call the attention of the Board of Trade to particularly is that that is not quite correct as to the reason why so few complaints were laid before the Board of Trade. The fact is that the men themselves who are compelled to work these long hours have got sick of laying complaints before the Board of Trade, in consequence of the extraordinary delay which occurs in the Department in making inquiries into them. Whilst I could enumerate scores, if not hundreds of cases I have simply selected one from each of several railways as typical cases for the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade. On the 22nd February, 1900, I laid before the Board of Trade a complaint on behalf of the shunters of the Lancashire and

    1077
    Yorkshire Company. This was acknowledged on the 23rd of February by the Board of Trade. They were asked for a further reply on the 8th of August. On the 11th of August they wrote to say they were in communication with the company. They were again asked for a reply on the 1st January, 1901, and on the 7th of January they wrote to say that they were still in communication with the company. No definite reply has been received up to this moment. Why is it that in the case of a complaint made on the 22nd February, 1900, there has been no reply made up to the 15th August, 1901? That is a case affecting one centre on the Lancashire and Yorkshire. Then there is a case of "long hours of signalmen at Nottingham Great Central." The Board of Trade was written to on the 5th September, 1899, and the complaint was acknow ledged on the 6th September. They were again written to on the 1st of August, 1900, and acknowledged the further communication on the 3rd August, and their reply was received on the 7th of August, 1900, and the result was that the hours were reduced from twelve to ten per day. In that case it took eleven months to elicit a reply. Here is another case, on the London and South Western. "Long hours of platform staff on London and South Western Railways (Sundays)." Representations were made to the Board of Trade on 20th July, 1899. They were acknowledged by the Board on the 22nd July. On the 18th August the Board asked for further information, and that was sent on the 23rd August, the communication being acknowledged by the Board on the 25th August. No reply coming to hand, a further representation was made on 20th November, which representation was acknowledged on the 22nd November. Further representations were made on the 20th July, 1900, and the Board's final reply was dated 26th July, the result being that the intervals of rest were increased before and after the long turns. It took over twelve months to obtain that reply from the Board of Trade. On the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway there is one cabin in which the signalmen make longer hours than are safe even in the interests of the public, much less
    1078
    in the interests of the men themselves. The men complained. The Board of Trade was communicated with on the 28th of September, 1899. The letter was acknowledged by the Board on the 29th of September; further information was asked for by the Board on the 6th of October, and it was sent on the 2nd of November, and acknowledged by the Board on the 4th of November, 1899. No less than twenty-three months have elapsed since representations were first made, and no reply has been yet received.
    In this matter of long hours during the past week or so hon. Members themselves have had a striking experience of its ill-effects, and they will at any rate sympathise with these men for whom I am pleading. I have made numerous complaints on behalf of engine-drivers and goods guards, and these are men who hold very important posts, as everyone knows. Here is a specimen of the hours of work of engine-drivers and firemen on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway amongst other complaints received. On Monday, 18th March, in the Wigan shed the men worked 11hrs. 50mins.; on Tuesday, 13hrs. 45mins.; on Wednesday 13hrs. 50mins.; on Thursday, 13hrs. 15mins.; on Friday, 14hrs.; and on Saturday, 12hrs. 10mins., or a total of 78 hours 50mins. for the week. These are the hours of the engine-drivers and firemen who have to work our railway business. If hon. Members in this House get so fagged out after ten or eleven hours work, what must be the condition of these men who work the locomotives on our railways if they are kept at work longer than twelve hours a day? I know that at the present time there are a large number of men on our railways who are kept at work for twelve, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen hours a day continuously. It is in view of these facts that I urge the President of the Board of Trade to apply the provisions of the Act of 1893—that I ask him to make the conditions under which these men work better than they are under the powers he already possesses for that purpose.
    I desire particularly to call attention to the statement in Sir Courtenay Boyle's Report that there were only forty-one complaints made during the twelve months ending July, 1900. Well, I myself laid before the Board two specific

    1079
    instances in which there were a greater number of cases of long hours than are contained in the Report altogether. I made a representation to the Board on November 1st, 1899, as to the long hours worked by the goods guards at Sheffield on the Midland. The statement I made was that in the previous week eighteen guards worked upwards of 100 hours. On 8th November the Board replied that there was nothing in my letter to show that the representation was authorised by the men concerned, and asking whether the complaint was made at the request of the men. On the 10th of November I wrote to the Board to the effect that it was not absolutely necessary, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Board by the Act, that the men themselves should make the complaint. The first section of the Act of 1893 says—
    "If it is represented to the Board of Trade, by or on behalf of the servants, or any class of servants of a railway company," etc.
    It is clear from those words that it is competent to me or to any Member of this House to make representations on behalf of the men. If any hon. Member finds or is of opinion that the engine drivers or guards or any other class of employees on a railway have been working longer hours, or are working longer hours than they ought to, he has a right under this Act to lay a complaint before the Board of Trade. But the Board of Trade desired to know from me whether the representation made was authorised by the men concerned, and I replied that the complaint was laid by the secretary of the Sheffield branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and that complaints by him were regarded as authentic by me. That was on 10th November. On the 30th of that month, 1899, further representations were made by me to the Board to the effect that in the previous week fifty-nine goods guards had worked upwards of 100 hours, and that one man had worked 126 hours. This was in the month of November, let it be observed, in the midst of foggy weather. At one station alone fifty goods guards work upwards of 100 hours, and one of them 126 hours in one week. In these two instances, in one month of the year 1899 I made representations to the Board of Trade showing that sixty-eight
    1080
    goods guards had worked excessive hours—upwards of 100. This cannot have received the attention of the Board, otherwise they would not have set forth in their Report that only forty-one complaints were made in the year ending July, 1900. I have here another typical case of the hours of signalmen on the London and North-Western Railway. Representations were made to the Board of Trade on the 19th February, 1901. They were repeated on the 4th June, 1901. On the 8th of June a reply was received, which read as follows—
    "With reference to your letter of the 4th inst. on the subject of the hours of duty of some of the signalmen employed at Longsight, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state that they inquired into this case, but that the circumstances disclosed did not appear to warrant further action."
    In regard to this let me remark as to railways generally that there is reason to fear that too frequently incorrect information is given to the Board of Trade by the railway officials. They do not compare with the statements which come from the men themselves, and I think it would only be fair that the two sides should be made known in order that either one, if it is inaccurate, should be corrected.
    There are further instances I wish to point out—and I may here remark that it is a strange thing that so much of this trouble should emanate from the London and North-Western Company. Why this is the case I am unable to say. But it seems to me that the fault lies either with the railway companies or the Board of Trade, or both. I hope to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade as to whether it is with his Department, or with the railway companies, that the fault lies in regard to this extraordinary delay in obtaining decisions in regard to complaints of long hours of service on our railways. I made a representation on behalf of the wagon examiners employed by the London and North-Western Company at Newark and Doncaster. These men have to deal with moving vehicles and their occupation is most dangerous, but, nevertheless, though the Act of Parliament was passed in 1893, it has taken till April of this year for the Board of Trade to find out that they cannot act in the case of men who are

    1081
    wagon examiners, though they are not employed on premises belonging to the London and North-Western Company, they are employees of that company, and work London and North-Western traffic at Newark and Doncaster. To my mind, the spirit of the Act was, and is, that the men employed by the company should be under the Act so far as hours of employment are concerned, without drawing the line so fine as it endeavoured to draw it in this particular instance. The Board of Trade pointed out to me that they could not act, as they say—
    "for the reason that the employees in question were not engaged in working the traffic on any part of the lines of the company by whom they were employed.'
    I wrote again, and on 19th April they replied and promised to follow the case up. Mr. Hopwood said in his letter—
    "I am, however, to add that the Board will give renewed consideration to the matter, and, should it appear desirable, will be further advised therein."
    This opposition has simply been raised by the London and North-Western Company or the Board of Trade to find out the interpretation of the particular words in the Act of 1893, "engaged in working the traffic on any part of the lines of the company.'" It is with a view to facilitating matters a little more in this direction that I have felt myself obliged to trouble the House with these few remarks to-night. I think it most extraordinary that from twelve to eighteen months should be occupied in ascertaining whether or not the men employed in the signal cabin at a particular station are working excessive hours or not. I do not for a moment believe that all this unnecessary delay is due to the Board of Trade. I am familiar with the process of negotiating with the railway companies, and I find that this is one of the best cards they have to play—this delay in the negotiations. Rightly or wrongly they believe—and I believe rightly with many people—that if they delay long enough in negotiation those who negotiate with them will get sick and tired of the whole business and let them have their own way. That is the exact position with regard to the hours of labour of railwaymen. It is not the fact that the number of complaints have
    1082
    become fewer because the railway companies have been so considerate as to reduce the number of hours. I have pointed out that in two instances sixty-eight men have worked upwards of one hundred hours, and that in itself is enough to prove what I have said.
    And now I feel compelled to call attention to the exceedingly heavy number of railway accidents that occur on our railways. We have been discussing tonight for a considerable time the number of men killed and wounded in South Africa. I am bound, before we terminate this session, to say a word or two on behalf of those who are killed and wounded in our industries in this country, and particularly those killed and wounded on our railways. These accidents on our railways are continually progressing. There has been a very heavy increase last year, though since July, 1899, we have had an Act for the Prevention of Accidents to Railway Servants. I am not going to dwell on that for any length of time. I know that Lord James of Herefordis considering the rules drafted by the Board of Trade, but in regard to these rules, as in regard to the provisions of the Hours of Labour Act, I am afraid that the railway companies are impeding the action of the Board of Trade. In the matter of the rules they are pressing on the Board of Trade too many amendments. Their action is the same with regard to all measures which pass this House which are intended for the amelioration of the condition of their employees. They do everything they can to prevent their successful operation. The time has come when something should be done by the Board of Trade to bring pressure to bear on these people to compel their co-operation in the saving of the lives and limbs of railwaymen. I will not trouble the House with reference to all the railway accidents, but a return has been made out bearing upon those which occur in connection with thirty-six different grades or sections of railwaymen employed. One-third of the fatal accidents and more than half the accidents resulting in injury to railwaymen occurred in connection with six grades only out of the thirty-six. In the case of the capstan men we find that last year one in every 131 was killed, and 1 in 11 was injured;

    1083
    in the case of yardsmen 1 in every 165 was killed, and 1 in every 58 was injured; in the case of the shunters 1 in every 197 was killed, and 1 in every 12 was injured; in the case of the goods guards 1 in every 267 was killed, and 1 in every 15 was injured; of the drivers 1 in every 673 was killed, and 1 in every 33 injured; and of the firemen 1 in every 789 was killed, and 1 in every 27 injured. No less than 181were killed and 2,667 injured in those six grades. One in 391 of the whole number was killed, and 1 in 26 injured. I find that in these six grades there are 70,759 men employed. The same companies employ 68,661 mechanics—just 2,000 less than the number of men employed in the six grades I have enumerated. Of these 68,661, only 19 were killed and 47 injured, or 1 in 3,613 killed and 1 in 1,461 injured. I mention these figures to draw attention to the fact that the mechanics are under the protection of the Factories and Workshops Act, and that they are better protected than the men employed in these more dangerous trades connected with the railways. I mention them to press on the Board of Trade the necessity of doing all they possibly can to facilitate the operation of the new rules. It should be remembered that the injuries sustained by our railwaymen are not slight injuries, and between the war and the railways I am afraid that ere long we shall have half our male population going about our streets cripples. In the six grades with which I have been dealing I find that 31 lost legs or feet, 14 arms or hands, and 19 fingers or toes. Two grades were the principal sufferers in these respects, namely, shunters and goods gaurds. Of the shunters, 9,244 in number, 47 were killed and 693 injured. Ten lost their legs or feet, 2 lost their arms or hands, and 4 lost their fingers or toes. Of the goods guards, 14,720 in number, 55 were killed and 877 injured, 12 lost their legs or feet, 5 lost their arms or hands, and 7 lost their fingers or toes.
    Now, this is too serious a matter to be allowed to slip by, and I certainly think that everything that can be done should be done to prevent these horrible accidents on our railways. I am not going at this hour—half-past one o'clock—of the morn-
    1084
    ing to put before the House all I had intended saying. We on the railways advocate shorter hours, and I will apply the principle we profess to the best of my ability. I am, however, forced by the exigencies of the occasion and the importance of the questions with which I have to deal, to avail myself of this opportunity. And I must say a word or two in reference to replies the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has given on one or two occasions to myself and several other Members as to automatic couplings on our railways. He has said that the matter has not been lost sight of. Well, it has been within sight for the last twenty years, but I trust that during the next twenty years it will come much closer to the view than it has been in the past. I am afraid that the accidents which occur are not all accurately reported. Some accidents occur through the coupling pole which do not get reported at all as coupling accidents. I have here one or two cases in point to show that accidents occur which are primarily due to the want of automatic couplings, though they are not reported as coupling accidents. One poor fellow was killed at Newark on the 4th August. He had to run with the brake by the side of the wagons and was forced to carry his coupling pole with him. He was not in the act of coupling, or uncoupling, but it appears from the evidence given at the inquest that the accident was due to his shunting pole getting between two broken pales of a fence or gate attached to the checker's hut. It was pointed out that where the truck was passing a space of eighteen or nineteen inches only would be left. The man was thrown down under the wheels of the wagon he was guiding. The accident was not reported as an accident due to coupling or uncoupling, but the instrument which, in the absence of automatic couplings, he was obliged to use in coupling operations, was the primary cause of the accident. The accident, therefore, should have been called a coupling accident. I have another case here which will show that the Act of Parliament as it was passed is not made a proper use of by the Board of

    1085
    Trade. It is a case in which an accident undoubtedly took place, but in which the Board say they cannot interfere, because nobody was killed. It is not only in fatal cases that inquiries ought to be made. I want to see inquiries made before people are killed, in order to prevent fatalities. The case I am now referring to took place at Kircaldy Harbour, on the 10th April, 1901, on the North British Railway. It was on a mineral branch line. The branch line is on a falling gradient of one in forty part of the way. The engine which works on the line is only fitted with a hand-break. No break-van is used. The guard has to fix sprags in the wagon wheels. On the morning of the accident the guard only succeeded in fixing one sprag, instead of three. The train gained speed and got out of the men's control. The fireman had to jump off the engine to hold a pair of catch-points over, in consequence of the boy who does this usually not being on duty then (5-10 a.m.). The train ran right over the pier into the water (at any rate the engine and some wagons did so), and the driver had to jump off. The train consisted of an engine and six wagons. No one was injured. I asked the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry, but Mr. Hopwood on the 18th April replied that—
    "as this accident occurred on a mineral line and no person was injured, it is not one that the company are required, to report to this Department."
    I maintain that accidents such as this should be inquired into. The driver in the case I have referred to was a fortunate fellow, and had a happy escape, but if he had remained on his engine, and had gone into the harbour with it, he would in all probability have been drowned, and an inquiry then would have taken place. I want to know what is the use of an Act to prevent accidents to railway employees if we have to wait until some one is killed or injured before an inquiry is held? I find in Major Druitt's report of the locomotive boiler explosion on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway at Knottingley, on March 11th last, that the inspector reports—
    "The main cause of the explosion was the use of an unsuitable material for the fire-box stays, some of which were defective at the time of the explosion."
    1086
    I have put several questions to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade as to this matter, and the House will agree that according to this report I was perfectly justified in so doing. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Company have adopted a new system, and I find no fault with the economy of the company in that respect. I do not complain of their using a more powerful engine and working it at high pressure, but what I wish to make clear is that this company have eight or nine more engines of the same class, and that the men complain that the pressure is so high, and the material used in the construction so bad, that a great deal of leakage occurs, and the drivers could not work the trains properly. This engine exploded, two poor fellows were blown to atoms, and an inquiry was held by Major Druitt, who has given as the cause of the accident the employment of unsuitable material. Well, I should like to ask whether or not the Board has made inquiries, or proposes to make inquiries, in respect to the other engines of the same class belonging to the company, to find out if the stays of those engines are made of the same material as those of the engine that was destroyed? There ought to be some such inquiry before any more men are blown to pieces. It is very unfortunate indeed that these things do occur. I know they can be prevented, and in connection with this particular engine I refer to I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will remember that I put a question to him on the subject six weeks ago. Before this engine exploded she was leaking so badly that the driver on one occasion had to take his train into a siding, unable to get steam enough to work it home. And because this occurred—not through his own negligence, but owing to the bad construction of the engine, as was amply demonstrated six weeks afterwards when she blew up—the result of his leaving his train and taking his engine to the shed empty was that the driver was reduced in the company's service to the extent of 1s. or 1s. 6d. a day. And he is in that reduced position to-day, and all because he could not work his engine. The blowing up of the engine, surely, is sufficient proof that

    1087
    the man was innocent on that occasion. The last point I have to put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is as to whether it is not possible for him to get his inspectors to present their reports of inquiries with greater despatch. It was important that this should be done, as it was now be coming the practice or custom for the railway companies to delay reinstating men. In this way, if anything happens, and there is reason to think that the men are to blame, they are suspended whilst a Board of Trade inquiry takes place, and they are not reinstated until such time as the Board of Trade publishes its Report. In this way, six weeks, or two months, or ten weeks, or three months may pass before the Report comes; the men are suffering a loss of wages all the time, and then, when they are reinstated, even if the Report of the Board of Trade is not unfavourable to them, the sum of money deducted from wages during this long period is too much for the companies to hand back to the men. The treatment of the men is not, by any means, such as the railway companies say it is, and therefore I can only seek to apply the same remedy to their grievances as the companies themselves apply—that is to say, make the best use of this House in the endeavour to secure the best possible conditions for the men employed on our railways. I find that the chairman of the Chatham and Dover Company (Mr. Forbes) complained bitterly at the half-yearly meeting the other day that the men were nursed too much by the Board of Trade. He said they were wet-nursed by the Board of Trade. I can assure him and the House that the contrary is the case. The men are not wet-nursed by the Board of Trade. It is in the case of the companies that the wet-nursing is practised. I maintain that in the very instance I am dealing with, namely, the delay in furnishing the reports of the inspectors who make inquiries, is a wet-nursing of the companies. I am not inventing this charge myself, but I hold that I have quite as much ground for saying that the companies are wet-nursed as Mr. Forbes, one of their chairmen, has for saying that the men are wet-nursed by the Board of Trade. This chairman says at a shareholders' meeting that they are in such a helpless, powerless condition
    1088
    now that they can only look to Parliament to help them. Well, the companies have a fair stock of directors and shareholders in this House, and they advocate the taking of measures to increase their number. I think if the railway companies find it to their advantage to have directors in the House, the men are in duty bound to look to securing a similar advantage in the interest of the safety of their own lives and limbs. They are bound to make every use of every Act of Parliament passed for their protection, and to secure the good offices of the Board of Trade wherever and whenever they can, in order to improve the conditions of their service.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Derby has addressed himself mainly to two subjects, namely, the Hours of Labour Act and its administration by the Board of Trade, and the Railway Accidents Act, and I will deal briefly with each of these. The hon. Member has called attention to the fact that the applications under the Hours Act have undoubtedly diminished, almost from the first hour in which the Act was passed. That diminution is attributed in the Report of the Board of Trade to a tendency on the part of the companies themselves to adjust the hours to a reasonable length, and I think, notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman, that that is the real reason why the applications have diminished so much in number. There were only forty-one applications last year, and I doubt whether for the year ending in July last there will have been half that number. The hon. Member attributes this diminution to quite a different cause, namely, to the delays of the Board, and the disgust of the men at the delays. Undoubtedly the hon. Member has adduced some instances in which the time taken in negotiation between the Board and the companies has seemed to be inordinately long. I am not prepared to discuss these particular cases; I could not do so without referring to Papers and studying the actual course of negotiations which have taken place; but I would remind the hon. Member of this. If the Board of Trade on full investigation made an order, and the company did not obey it, there is what is equivalent to an appeal to the Railway

    1089
    Commissioners. The Board of Trade itself is powerless to enforce an order except throgh the Railway Commissioners, and if what is equivalent to an appeal to the Railway Commissioners were resorted to by the companies, I am afraid that the delays would be greater than they are at present. The officials of the Board of Trade have been able to obtain a satisfactory settlement in a very large number of cases, and in no case has it been necessary to enforce their order through the medium of the Railway Commissioners. This I say to the credit of those officials. As to the particular cases the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I would say that if there has been undue delay in a special case it would be well that he should make an appeal. I would then examine that case, and, if necessary, and I thought there had been undue delay, I would take care that steps should be taken to hasten the proceedings, but so far as I am aware I have had no personal appeal from the hon. Member with respect to any of these cases. I hope that in future he will appeal to me personally on the subject, and I can assure him that the appeal shall have my best attention.
    Now I conic to the question of accidents. The hon. Member has admitted that so far as, the drawing up of rules under the Accidents Prevention Act of last year is concerned, there has, since the beginning of this year, been no undue delay. I think he is cognisant of what is passing, namely, that we are doing our best to come to an arrangement with the railway companies by which the draft rules already published shall be accepted as far as possible, either in their original or in a modified form, by the railway companies, so that all appeal to the Railway Commissioners provided for under the Act may be avoided. But there are one or two other matters that the hon. Member has referred to. There is, for instance, automatic couplings. The position with regard to that is this—I think I stated it the other day in reply to a question—it is simply that any couplers which may be adopted, automatic or otherwise, must be capable of being adapted to all railways, so that traffic belonging to one company may be run on the line of any other company. To secure this uniformity, it is desirable
    1090
    that the companies themselves should be satisfied as to what is the best form of coupler. They are making experiments at the present moment with various kinds of couplings, and until these experiments have been carried further than they have gone at present I do not think it would be wise for the Board of Trade to put in operation the powers they possess under the Act. But as the hon. Gentleman has said, I stated the other day the course which I proposed to follow. If after experiments and a certain lapse of time nothing of a satisfactory character is accomplished by the railway companies, it will be necessary for the Board of Trade to intervene in some way or other. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not lost sight of the matter.
    The next point of the hon. Member was a complaint as to the Board of Trade having been asked to inquire into an accident, but having declined on the ground that there had been no loss of life or injury to limb. In this matter I may say it is for the Board to comply with the law as it stands. If we were to go further than that, and inquire into the causes of all accidents, we should require to have a regular army of inspectors, and we should be destroying the responsibility of the companies on which the safety of their working depends. So far as I am able to judge, I do not think it would be desirable to introduce, in the case of railways, a system of inspection similar to that in use in the case of factories. I am sure it would throw on the Government Department a task which it would be almost impossible to undertake. I would illustrate that by reference to the explosion which lately occurred on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. The cause of that explosion appears to have been the weakness of the material of which the stays in the fire-box were composed. The hon. Member would appear to suggest that the proper course to adopt would be to inspect the locomotive before an accident happened to see whether or not they were properly constructed, so that accidents of this kind could be avoided. But such inspection would be impossible—
    *MR. BELL: No, no. What I suggested was that something should be done in the case of the engines of the

    1091
    same class as that which exploded. I said that the railway company had a number of engines of a similar class, and I wished to know what steps were to be taken to ascertain whether or not the fire-box stays were made of the same material.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think we could do more than we have done—that is, to report in the case of the accident, and to call the attention of the company to the fact that the accident arose from the weakness of the material of which the stays were composed. Of course, the companies in all these cases take notice of the reports, and I have no doubt they will take steps to remedy the weakness wihch the inspector in this case has discovered. I believe that already they are doing that, and are substituting for the amalgamation or alloy of which the stay is composed a copper stay. The only other matter dealt with is the despatch in publishing the reports of the inspectors. I am not prepared to admit that there is any unnecessary delay. If the hon. Member studies the reports on these accidents—and I am sure he does—he will see that they are of a nature which require a considerable amount of labour on the part of the inspectors. The report as to the Lancashire and Yorkshire accident itself is one evincing the great care and labour bestowed on the inquiry by the inspector. I do not believe there is unnecessary delay, but here, again, if he can show me that this is the case—if he will confer with me personally—I will certainly look into any case submitted to me, and do all I can to reduce the delay in making the reports. I will reduce it to the smallest possible point.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I venture to make an appeal to the House to bring this discussion to a close. As we all know, the strain on the House has been very great. We have sat now for three successive days for more than twelve hours each day. Everyone whom I am addressing knows that it is the general wish that we should separate on Saturday, but that can only be done by getting through this and other Bills on the Order Paper to-night. I hope that will be done without throwing on the officials and ourselves a really intolerable burthen.
    MR. ROCHEsaid he desired to make two observations with reference to the question raised by his hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. At the same time he desired to acquiesce in the request made by the right hon. Gentleman, and would confine his remarks to the question of the evicted tenants on a particular estate which he knew very well, namely, the Clanricarde estate, and he trusted he should be able to prove that the Plan of Campaign was in no way responsible for the conflict which had taken place between Lord Clanricarde and his tenants, and that the tenants did everything which any impartial tribunal would expect of them in order to avoid a conflict.
    *MR. SPEAKER: How does the hon. Member make that question bear on the salary of the Chief Secretary or on any other Vote? The hon. Gentleman cannot now discuss the land question.
    MR. ROCHEsaid he thought he was entitled to discuss the position of the evicted tenants with the hope, however faint, that something might be done to reinstate them.
    *MR. SPEAKER: By legislation?
    MR. ROCHE: Yes, Sir.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Legislation cannot be discussed on the Appropriation Bill; it must be a legislative matter.
    MR. ROCHEsaid that they were promised a Land Bill which they did not see.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order order! That question does not arise.
    MR. TULLYsaid that in the absence of the Chief Secretary he would ask the Attorney General for some information with reference to the man McGoohan, who was one of his constituents. He had been pressing that case on the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for some time, and he admitted that they had met him very

    1093
    fairly. They had decided that the man was unfairly convicted and that he would be given substantial compensation. He now wished to know what was the amount of the compensation. The man was charged with cutting the tails off cattle and that offence was proved against him by a police sergeant named Sheridan, whom the Dublin Castle authorities since discovered was a scoundrel and who was dismissed from the police force.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)said that the question the hon. Member asked was precisely the question which his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had refused to answer.
    MR. TULLYsaid that that was what he complained of. He wished to know whether the compensation would be on the scale of that granted to another innocent man in his constituency named Hepburn, who was sentenced to imprisonment for life for a crime of which another man afterwards admitted he was guilty. Hepburn was released, and got a couple of thousand pounds compensation for the imprisonment he had suffered. Would McGoohan be compensated on the same liberal terms?
    MR. ATKINSONsaid that the Chief Secretary had stated that the man would get compensation, but it was obviously undesirable to state the amount.
    MR. TULLYsaid if he got compensation on the scale given to Hepburn he would be satisfied.
    MR. T. M. HEALYdesired to direct attention to a question of legal procedure which had occurred in Ireland during the last few days. Everyone knew it was impossible to convert to Protestantism either a Catholic or a Jew without expending more money than it was worth, but there appeared to be in England a faction which was determined to spend large sums in endeavouring to convert Irish Catholics. On the 26th June last an evangelistic platform was pulled down in the county of Wexford and some farmers were charged with pulling it down. They were dis-
    1094
    charged by the local bench. What happened? Did the Government wonder why law and order were held in such contempt in Ireland or why no Irishman expected anything like fairness in such matters. Nearly two months had elapsed since those men were discharged, and on Monday last the local resident magistrate, Sir Robert Paul, was passed over and a gentleman named Meldon was brought down from the county of Wicklow to the town of Wexford, where he visited the local sessional prosecutor, Mr. Cooper, and between the two of them they concocted warrants against the men who had been discharged from custody and who would have attended on summonses. At three o'clock in the morning a posse of police twenty or thirty in number dragged those ten farmers from their beds and brought them in cars not to their own petty sessions district at Ferns but to Gorey. Meldon stayed in Wexford all night although his residence was in Bray and proceeded by the 10.15 train to Gorey, the Crown Prosecutor travelling with him in the same carriage. As soon as they arrived a special court was assembled and the ten men were brought before it over the miserable question of a Wexford hut. What did Meldon do? The Commissions of the Justices of Peace as he understood had expired owing to the six months which had elapsed since the demise of the Crown. He supposed Mr. Meldon's commission had not elapsed but however that might be, he sat as a special court in Gorey, and the men applied for an adjournment in order to have professional advice. Meldon, who knew that the local magistrates would get resworn if he gave any time, refused to grant an adjournment longer than up to Friday but he said that for the convenience of the accused he would adjourn the case to Ferns, where he would sit alone and return the men for trial at the next winter assizes, so that they would not be tried in Wexford at all.
    They were asked to respect law and order. It was impossible. He had tried to do it, but it was no good. These instances were of importance only because they were symptomatic. When you are prepared to go these lengths over the petty question of whether a

    1095
    man should preach the Gospel in his own extraordinary way, how could a man expect that the law would be administered fairly and decently when the great question of landlord and tenant came up? It must be remembered that the Irish had an educated clergy. But these fellows were converted on the Monday, and you sent them down to convert Catholics on the Tuesday. They heard their vulgar accents and their bad grammar; they heard them shouting the name of God in what, to his mind, was a blasphemous manner—all this in the midst of a population with an educated clergy, and who reverenced the name of God. Was it surprising that the people rose against this abominable spirit? He regretted that they threw over this Gospel tent, or this blasphemy Inferno, as he would prefer to call it, but could that be wondered
    at? The Protestants of England, who expected their name to be respected, sent down into an area in which he had no jurisdiction a paid minion to re-try these men, to drag them out of their beds at three or four o'clock in the morning, to arrange the nice intricacies of the law in order to enmesh them and send them off to a foreign venue at the next winter assizes. And this was done in the name of law and order. That law and order would never get respect from the Irish people. They despised it. Those who did these things in the name of law and order would only cause law and order to be despised, and their own names, however high they were, would be despised in addition.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 141; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 476.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lucas. Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)

    Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

    Gordon. Maj Evans- (T'r H'mlets

    Malcolm, Ian

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Bignold, Arthur

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

    Bill, Charles

    Greene, W. Raymond-t Cambs.)

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gretton, John

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Groves, James Grimble

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Morgan. David J (Walthamstow

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Banbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Caldwell, James

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Mount, William Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Murray (Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Helder, Augustus

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Purvis, Robert

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Randles, John S.

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

    Ridley. Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

    Colville, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Robertson, Herbert. (Hackney)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lawson, John Grant

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Long. R Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lowther, Rt. Hn J W (C'mb Penr)

    Spear, John Ward

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk Mid

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Valentia, Viscount

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

    Sturt, Hn. Hvmphry Napier

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gow.

    Williams, Rt. Hn J. Powell- (Birm.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Loamy, Edmund

    O'Mara, James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Govern, T.

    Reddy, M.

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, J.

    Murnaghan, George

    Roche, John

    Delany, William

    Murphy, John

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Dillon, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Doogan, P. C.

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

    Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.

    Duffy, William J.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Tully, Jasper

    Field, William

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Doherty, William

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Bill read a second time and committed for to-morrow.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that a quarter past two in the morning on the last day but one of the session was not a proper opportunity to discuss a proposal of this magnitude authorising the expenditure of £27,000,000. They had been appealed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the score of economy, but he was afraid that they were now spending their money very recklessly. He was in favour of doing everything that could possibly be done to strengthen the fleet, and to defences of a maritime character he raised no objection. But he wished to point out that in regard to Naval works in the past there had been a very great amount of extravagance. They were now practically giving the Government a vote of credit amounting to several millions of money, and as to the way that money was going to be spent they knew nothing at all. A number of hon. Gentlemen interested in this
  1098
  matter were not in attendance, and at this time of the morning he would content himself by merely making his protest against bringing a Bill of this mognitude forward so late in the session, and in future when a Bill of this character was introduced he hoped it would be brought in earlier.
  Clause agreed to.
  Other clauses and schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  MILITARY WORKS BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  MR. DILLONsaid he proposed to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington. The finance of this Bill as he ventured to point out yesterday, was totally different from the finance of the Naval Works Bill. There was no doubt that the Naval Works Bill, in common decency, ought to occupy one night at least more, and he had not yet obtained one single word of explanation in regard to the totally different systems of finance adopted in these two Bills. In the case

  1099
  of the Naval Works Bill, no matter what the liability for work might be, they were asked to vote in the present Bill only so much money as it was estimated by the Board of Admiralty could be spent in the next two years. In the case of the Military Works Bill they were asked to vote borrowing powers equal to the total estimated cost of the work. The result of this policy in previous years had been simply ludicrous; for whereas in the present Bill they were called upon to vote a fresh credit of £6,000,000, the Government admitted that they had an unexpended balance of £7,000,000. He thought that was a reckless system of finance, and the comparisons he had made showed that even the War Office had already got a long way ahead of the Admiralty in regard to extravagance. The moment the War Office estimated for work, although that work might extend over ten years, they demanded the full amount to cover the whole period. That was a most extravagant and slovenly method of finance. The War Office ought to be content, like the Admiralty, with the sum really required for the current year. He objected also to the clause on the ground that the fortification of London would be a monstrous and grotesque waste of money. The Secretary of State for War and the Under Secretary had sketched out a proposal to fortify London by a chain of fortified posts. Nothing could be more preposterous and absurd than this proposal at a time when Paris, which was more exposed to invasion, intended to abolish the fortifications and turn them into boulevards.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'six,' and insert the word 'two.'"—(Mr. Dillon)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the clause."
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton: In regard to the last part of the hon. Member's speech lean assure him that neither the money undisposed of nor any other money will be taken for the defence of London proper. All the money which will be voted tonight is allotted simply for those sea-
  1100
  board defences, which I think he will agree are necessary. With regard to the method in which this Bill is drafted and the difference between it and the Naval Works Bill, I do not attempt to explain the difference, but I wish to point out the method on which this Bill is drawn. We ask for certain works, and we state to the House what we believe is the total amount the works will cost. We do not ask the House or the country all at once to put to the credit of the War Office the sum mentioned in Clause 1 of the Bill. We simply ask that the House should authorise the completion of these particular works, and that they should understand at the same time what the works will cost. We ask the House to authorise us to go on up to the limit of expenditure set down for that particular item. It is put before the House and the country in as clear a way as we possibly can. The full liability as to the works to be constructed is known, but nothing is asked from the country in the way of actual cash until the time comes when we want the money to pay it over to the contractor who is carrying out the works. It will therefore be seen that there is no difference of method between ourselves and the Admiralty.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the money was not only asked by the War Office, but they got authority to draw it when they wanted it, and that was what the Admiralty did not do. The War Office asked for money before they wanted it, and he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that it was a most extravagant way of dealing. He thought the Admiralty system was infinitely preferable.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBobjected to voting money for defence works when they were not told where the money was to be spent. He congratulated the War Office upon having abandoned the policy of fortifying London. He thought that was satisfactory progress in the true direction. Was any of this money to be spent on Wei-hai-wei?
  LORD STANLEY: No.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: The War Office were getting in the thin end of the wedge for the fortification of Wei-hai-wei.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISprotested against the scandal of asking the House to sanction the expenditure of several millions of money at three o'clock in the morning at the very end of the session.
  MR. O'MARAasked the noble Lord whether any unexpended balance in connection with works which had been authorised and not completed would be diverted to new works, and, if not, what would be done with money now voted and not spent? Could any
  of the money be spent on the defences of Wei-hai-wei or London?
  LORD STANLEY: With any unexpended balance no new works of any kind can be begun. The whole of the works we intend to begin are in the schedule and in front of the House, and no new works besides these will be commenced.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 52. (Division List No. 477.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'r H'mlets

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gore. Hon S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bill, Charles

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Haslett, Sir James Homer

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.)

  Randles, John S.

  Brassey, Albert

  Helder, Augustus

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Ridley Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  (Harrington, Spencer

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Keswick, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Spear, John Ward

  Colville, John

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Williams, Rt. Hn J. Powell- (Birm.

  Fielden Edward Brocklehurst

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H E (Wigt'n

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

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Field, William

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Delany, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Hayne. Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Reddy, M.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Sullivan, Donal

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.

  Lundon, W.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Doherty, William

  Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  O'Malley, William

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

  Murnaghan, George

  O'Mara, James

  Murphy, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  *MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he wished to reiterate the protest which he had made in regard to the Naval Works Bill. He thought it was a scandalous thing that they should be called upon to sanction the expenditure of several millions at three o'clock in the morning. This was oligarchic Imperialism, not democratic Imperialism. He protested against it in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was absent. He wished to refer the House to a most admirable speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered at the Mansion House to the bankers and merchants of the City of London on 26th June last. He thought that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an appeal for a party of economy, that appeal should receive some response, and if there was only one man to stand up in response to that appeal he should be that man. The right hon. Gentleman had given some very sensible advice in regard to the opinions offered by experts in these military and naval matters. He said—
  "In all these matters, and in many others to which I need not allude, we are always, of course, confronted with the professional expert. Now, I have seen a good deal in my public life of the professional expert. He is always cocksure, he always differs from another expert, he is always expensive, and he is not infallible. He is gifted with an unbounded belief in the inexhaustibility of the public purse, and with a supreme contempt and digust for any Treasury official, or any Chancellor of the Exchequer who checks him in the realisation of his momentary fancies. Hear the experts by all means, weigh carefully whatever they put before you, but in your public affairs, as in your private affairs, act with prudence, intelligence, and judgment, and weigh their advice before you take it."
  Alas, had not that been proved by the experience of the House of military experts and their theories? They had been warned that if they did not vote these ten or twenty millions they would be traitors to the true interests of the
  1104
  country. He would ask who were those who had been the true patriots, and had built up its great trade and commerce? It was the men who advocated public economy and retrenchment. These Bills meant heavy taxation. It might be that they were necessary, but if so they had been made necessary by the policy of the Government, which had estranged Great Britain from every nation on the face of the earth. These Bills, which were practically votes of credit given blindfold to the Government, had been forced on the House at the end of the session, and he asked an explicit assurance that that would not be repeated, and that when next a Naval or Military Works Bill was introduced it should be brought forward at an early period of the session. He hoped that the House of Commons would try to regain some of its liberty of criticism and control, which had been rapidly passing away from it.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Schedule:—
  *MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that the first item in the Schedule was three-quarters of a million, and there was no indication as to where the money was to be spent. It was perfectly well known that there was not the slightest difficulty in foreign Governments, who knew the way to go about it, obtaining every information in regard to these works, and he wanted to know why the Government hid these works with an impenetrable veil of secrecy from the House. Certain payments were to be made in distant parts of the world, particularly in regard to some of the colonies. He especially wished to know what the expenditure was for at Esqui-

  1105
  mault. He also drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that there was no contribution whatever from Canada. In Australia the population was taxed for naval and military purposes at the rate of 3s. per head, whereas the inhabitants of this country were taxed 33s. per head for these purposes. We only received £136,000 from Australia and New Zealand on condition that our Fleet was maintained in these waters.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he should like some explanation with reference to the £164,000 which was asked for for expenditure in Egypt, He observed that under the head of ranges there were items for mobilisation and store-rooms, which had absolutely nothing to do with ranges. It was perfectly absurd that they should be included in the Vote for rifle ranges. All he desired was that it should not be thought that they were spending over £1,000,000 on rifle ranges when less than half a million was being actually spent. This was a sham, and made it appear as if the War Office were putting up more ranges than they were actually doing. The answer of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the previous night was very indefinite. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was anxious to do what he could, but his answer was only a general expression of anxiety on his part to do well.
  MR. F. W. WILSONsaid he desired to support the remarks of his hon. friend. Ranges were being mixed up with artillery and other matters, with the result that the public thought that money was being spent on them, whereas it was being actually spent in other directions. The country would not be satisfied until the Government took up the question of providing rifle ranges seriously.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid that like the hon. Member for North Louth he frankly admitted he had not an Imperial soul, and the matter he desired to raise had no connection with Gibraltar or any other outpost of the Empire, but referred to his own constituency. Under the Military Works Act of 1897—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Military Works Act of 1897. He must confine himself to the Bill before the Committee.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid that fortifications were at present being constructed at the entrance to Lough Swilly, which prevented a great number of fishermen from following their calling, thereby inflicting a great hardship on them. He would suggest that a few hundred pounds should be spent for a boat slip in that district in order that the fishermen might still be able to pursue their calling. He understood that there was no objection as far as the military authorities were concerned. If that were not granted, the breadwinners of fifty or sixty families would be turned out of employment. He hoped the matter would be inquired into, and that he would receive a satisfactory assurance from the noble Lord.
  MR. TULLYsaid he wished to move to omit the reference to rifle ranges. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Not rifle ranges.] Then in deference to his hon. friends he would move an Amendment with reference to Bermuda. He was anxious to have the grant for Bermuda struck out. Whenever the First Lord of the Treasury was in the House, especially at such an early hour in the morning, he was always closured.
  *THE CHAIRMAN; The hon. Member must now confine himself to Bermuda.
  MR. TULLYsaid he objected to £84,000 being spent in Bermuda, because he had noticed that the Government were sending Boer prisoners there, just as Irish prisoners of war were sent to that island. Was the money required for barracks for the Boer prisoners? If it was, he objected to Imperial money being spent for imprisoning those gallant men.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will see that there is nothing about prisoners in it. He must confine himself strictly to his motion.
  MR. TULLYsaid he would move to reduce the grant to Bermuda by £80,000
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 4, to leave out '£84,000' in order to insert '£4,000.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That '£84,000' stand part of the Schedule."
  LORD STANLEYsaid he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment, nor did he suppose that the hon. Member imagined for a moment that he would. The money was to provide barrack accommodation for an infantry battalion, and also for some small minor works which had to be carried out.
  MR. TULLYsaid that after the satisfactory explanation of the noble Lord he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONsaid that there wore many items in the Bill to which under other circumstances he should feel bound to call attention, but he would confine himself to moving the omission of one item, namely, £164,000 for providing barrack
  accommodation in Egypt. He specially selected that item because he thought it involved a very large question of policy. Of course the expenditure meant a public statement of the intention of Great Britain to break her solemn pledge to Europe and to maintain a permanent occupation in Egypt. They knew perfectly well that that had always been the intention of the Government, but it was a different matter to vote £164,000 for permanent barrack accommodation in that country, which would be declaring to Europe that the solemn pledge given by England was valueless, and that England meant to remain permanently in Egypt. He would content himself with taking a division as a protest against the policy involved in the Vote.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 11, to leave out 'Egypt, £164,000.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 478.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doxford, Sir W. Theodore

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Keswick, William

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Foster, Philip S. (War wick, S. W.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bill, Charles

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'r H'mlts

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brassey, Albert

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Caldwell, James

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Helder, Augustus

  Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Colvile, John

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seeyl, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. Edw.

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B (Isle of Wight)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell (Birm

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wyndham, Rt. H George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur) Ormskirk

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-

  O'Doherty, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Mara, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Murnaghan, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dillon, John

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Question put, "That this be teh Schedule to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 129; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 479.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doxford, Sir Win. Theodore

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgm & Nairn

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Bill, Charles

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'r H'mts

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brassey, Albert

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Malcolm, Ian

  Caldwell, James

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gretton, John

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath. James (Staffords., N. W.)

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Helder, Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Colville, John

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Purvis, Robert

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell- (Birm.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

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

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Royds; Clement Molyneux

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Murnaghan, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Darnel Daniel

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n N.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tully, Jasper

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Doherty, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Schedule:—
  MR. TULLYmoved to omit the Irish Sunday Closing Act, 1878. Year after year the Act had renewed, and it was time the Government made up their minds as to whether or not it was to be a permanent Act. He was not certain that the disadvantages of the Act did not outweigh the advantages, for instead of being a Sunday Closing Act, it was a Sunday Opening Act for the low class public-houses.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 24, to leave out '(24) 41 and 42 Vic., c. 38, The Sunday Closing (Ireland) Act, 1878.'"—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDthought the time would soon come when the whole question of Sunday closing in Ireland would have to be considered, and some decision
  1112
  arrived at. It was unsatisfactory to have an Act of this kind renewed year after year for twenty years, but it would be an absurd thing to strike it out of the present Bill. Nobody suggested that the Act should be entirely repealed, and he should certainly vote against the proposal of his hon. friend, in which course of action he thought he would be supported by many hon. Members around him. He earnestly hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, especially as there was a point which they desired to discuss about to be raised.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DOHERTYmoved to omit lines 25 and 26 from the schedule, referring to the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the Amending Act of the following year. The House, he thought, could not have the slightest idea of the drastic and atrocious provisions contained in the original Act. One of the provisions was that any person having arms in a district proclaimed under the Act could be hauled up by an ordinary policeman without any information being laid, and imprisoned or fined, even though the arms might be perfectly useless for purposes of discharge. The definition of arms included not only fire-arms, but swords,

  1113
  pikes, and bills, and he had known men of spotless character to be dragged before magistrates for having arms which were absolutely useless. They not only complained of the provisions of this Act, but they also complained of its partial administration, particularly in the north of Ireland. There the Act had only been used to harass and persecute Nationalists in country districts, and it was never put into operation in the Orange districts. On the 6th of June last, a bomb, described by the Chief Secretary as being of a dangerous character, was discharged in the Catholic quarter of Londonderry, and an expression of regret at the occurrence had been made on behalf of the Government. If a like outrage had happened in the county of Sligo or Mayo in which Nationalists were implicated, did they imagine that an expression of regret would for one moment be taken as a sufficient excuse? Some weeks later another bomb, which was also described as being of a dangerous character, was discharged from the city walls of Londonderry, and two children were seriously injured. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if the police authorities in Londonderry had communicated the names of the two men who had discharged this bomb. The reply he received was that the Castle authorities again accepted an expression of regret from those two men who had committed this outrage. Had that occurred in the South or West of Ireland or in the Catholic districts of the north of Ireland what would have happened to those men? Why, they would have been sent to penal servitude for at least two years. Were they to understand that there was one law for the Nationalists and another for the Orangemen? The Chief Secretary had admitted that the Castle authorities were afraid of prosecuting their supporters in the north of Ireland. Those men were merely the tools of those who appeared on the election committees of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it was the duty of the Chief Secretary to at least see that justice was meted out to Nationalists in those districts as well as to Orangemen. Not long ago a procession of Orangemen marched through the streets of Londonderry carrying naked swords, and no prosecution was instituted against them until some months after-
  1114
  wards, during which period the question was brought to the front by the press. Later on two resident magistrates were sent to try twelve of these men for illegally carrying naked swords, and they were fined 1d. each with costs. In other parts of Ireland if Nationalists were found carrying naked swords they would get six months imprisonment. They had heard a great deal about the grievances of the Uitlanders, but if the right hon. Gentleman would see that the Catholics in Ireland got the same treatment as their Orange brethren he would be doing a great deal. In the North of Ireland the punishment was most drastic in the case of Catholics, but in other cases when the offenders happened to belong to the opposite party they got off with penny fines! He thought the examples he had given showed that this Act was not administered impartially in the Protestant and Unionist districts in Ireland, while in Nationalist country districts it was used to persecute the Catholic inhabitants. In the county of Donegal a procession marched through a proclaimed district, and in this case three men carried naked swords, and yet there had been no prosecution. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, lines 25 and 26, to leave out '(25) 44 and 45 Vic. c. 5, The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member opposite said that this is not the date or hour to discuss the merits or the demerits of this Act, and I quite agree with that statement. This Act was placed on the Statute-book by Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1881; it was renewed in 1886 by another Government of Mr. Gladstone's, with the full concurrence of the Irish party. It has been renewed subsequently in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act by the Administrations of Lord Salisbury and by his political opponents. Every Government during the last twenty years, has found it necessary, or at any rate expedient, to

  1115
  keep the Act on the Statute-book. The complaint of the hon. Member is not so much of the existence of the Act, but he suggests that it is not properly administered, and he argues that its application should be more general, and states that it is applied more stringently in some places than in others. I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Member's illustrations. The bomb fired at Londonderry, which figured in the hon. Member's speech, has often been mentioned before, and it was in fact a rocket with a metal case and an explosive inside. One of these rockets fell into a yard and harmlessly burst, and another was found by a boy and injured him while he was handling it. When these facts were made known to the person responsible for the fireworks he was admonished that such rockets were not to be used, and he expressed his regret. I think sufficient notice was taken of the incident. That is the character of the evidence brought forward by the hon. Member, who says that the Act is maladministered. Although I could develop that argument at great length, I do not think I should do so at this time of night (4 a.m.). The Government do impartially administer the Act; it is not true that they deliberately, or even carelessly, apply it more stringently in some parts of the
  country than in others. It is enforced in agrarian districts, and it is in operation in the cities of the north. I do not think I should be justified in labouring this matter at any great length. If I have failed to satisfy the hon. Member he can test the opinion of the House by taking a vote.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid the Act gave the police power to visit houses where they knew firearms were stored. There were houses in Derry where firearms were stored, and prosecutions did not take place.
  MR. CULLINANdenied that there was impartial administration when a man in his constituency was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the alleged dropping of a simple explosive, while an apology was accepted in Derry for the explosion of a missile which actually did injury to persons. How would Englishmen like to be so treated? The Act was administered in the most outrageously unjust manner.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 50. (Division List No. 480.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Heath, J. (Staffords., N. W.)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Augustus

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Douglas. Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Doxford, Sir W. Theodore

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Keswick, William

  Bill, Charles

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brassey, Albert

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'r H'mlts

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gore, Hon. S. T. Ormsby- (Linc.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gretton, John

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Mansfield, Horace Randell

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Spear, John Ward

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Randles, John S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  More. Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Ritchie. Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds. Clement Molyneux

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Sackville, Colonel S. G. Stopford-

  Williams, Rt. Hon J Powell- (Birm

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid).

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath-

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith. James Parker (Lanarks.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Doherty, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Mara, James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Colville, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Govern, T.

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.)

  MR. O'MARAmoved to omit the Light Railways Act. 1896, from the schedule on the ground, as he stated, that the Act had been mainly used by speculators for their personal and private profit. He understood that the Act was to be brought before the House, next year, and therefore he would not state his objections at any great length now.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, lines 11 and 12, to leave out '(33) 59 and 60 Vic. c. 48, the Light Railways Act, 1896.'"—(Mr. O'Mara.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124 Noes, 45. (Division List No. 481.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Colville, John

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brassey, Albert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Caldwell, James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Arnold-Forster. Hugh O.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fellowes Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Bignold, Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Bill, Charles

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. D. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Cordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gretton, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Win.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Williams, Rt. Hn J. Powell- (Birm.

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wilson. Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  J ones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Keswick. William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Purvis, Robert

  Lawson, John Grant

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Hayden. John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, R. (Cork, S.)

  O'Malley, William

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Mara, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Govern, T.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Murnaghan, George

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n N.

  Tully, Jasper

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

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

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Doherty, William

  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That
  the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 45. (Division List No. 482.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hoo,d Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Agg-Gardner James Tynte

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Morris, Hon. J Martin Henry F.

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

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Gretton, John

  Murry, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bule)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bill, Charles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Haslett, Sir James Homer

  Brassey, Albert

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Randles, John S.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Sackville, Col. S. (J. Stopford-

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Colville, John

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Stanley, Hon Arthur! Ormskirk

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams. Rt. Hn J Powell-l Birm.

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Wilson. Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Gordon, Maj Evan s- (T'r H'mlets

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Gore, Hon. S. E. Ormsby- (Linc.)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry", W. O'Kelly, Conor, (Mayo, N.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William O'Mara, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  London, W.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell. Dr. Mark A.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Govern, T.

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Murnaghan, George

  Delany, William

  Murphy, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth. South)

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Tully, Jasper

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

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

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Gilhoolly, James

  O'Doherty, William

  Question put, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  *MR. CULLINANsaid he opposed the Third Reading of the Bill because, while assistance was given to the landlords in Ireland, none whatever was given to the evicted tenants. Those were most glaring cases, and he was sorry that they had not had a proper opportunity for discussing them.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said the point raised by the hon. Member was that, owing to the defaults of the tenants, the sums referred to had become irrecoverable. The hon. Member said that they should be recovered from the landlord, as they went to improve Ids property; but under the law they could not be recovered from the landlord. They could not put a charge on the landlord for money borrowed by his tenant without his consent. If the landlord's consent were made necessary, it might be impossible for the tenant to obtain the loan in many eases.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it was now more than ten years since the first of these Public Works Loans Bills had been introduced, and he then appealed to the Government to make the landlord liable. Lord Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the matter was debated at length, but the Government declined to take his advice, with the result that where a loan was granted to a tenant who was subsequently evicted the landlord was allowed to get the benefit of it, with the connivance of the Government.
  MR. TULLYsaid he wished to support the remarks of his hon. friend. He observed that £23,352 was to be wiped off for one union in England, whereas only a few hundred pounds were being wiped off in connection with Irish unions. He certainly thought the Secretary to the Treasury should give some information as to the large sums that were to be wiped off in England, compared with which the sums to be wiped off in Ireland were a mere bagatelle.
  MR. SHEEHANsaid he wished to know if loans were to be advanced to emergency men without sufficient security, and not advanced to tenants who had proper security.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in the Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. TULLYsaid the Bill was to appoint two Commisisoners at £1,000 a year. As he had already said, if the First Lord of the Treasury were present he would be closured.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to bear in mind the Standing Order with reference to repetition.
  MR. TULLYsaid that the clause stated that two Commissioners were to be appointed, but some explanation should be given as to why they should be paid £1,000 a year. He objected to Clause 1, and would move to omit it.
  Bill reported without amendment; read the third time and passed.

  MARRIAGES LEGALISATION BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL, [Lords].
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman intended to proceed with the Bill he would have to make up his mind for a long and, he was afraid, acrimonious discussion. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said that the Bill was a small one, but it would be quite impossible to go on with it if hon. Members made up their minds to oppose it. He was not responsible for the speech of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, which had no connection with the Bill. However, he would accept the motion of the hon. Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the reason they opposed the Bill was out of compliment to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, because it was proposed to change the county town from Duns.
  MR. DILLONsaid he desired to support the motion for the adjournment of the debate. So far as he was concerned he would vehemently oppose the Bill, and he had decided on that course long before
  1126
  the speech of the hon. Member for Berwickshire.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that the hon. Member helped the hon. Member for Berwickshire at election times.
  MR. DILLONsaid that it was at those times he made the acquaintance of the people who now begged him to oppose the Bill.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 12, after 'hundred,' to insert 'subject to revision in accordance with this Act and.'"—(Sir Jas. Haslett.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was in favour of assisting the Government to pass the Bill, but it was well they should know what the exact position was. The hon. Member opposite was a member of the Belfast Corporation and represented one section of the population in Belfast, and it was desirable that any Amendment he proposed should be considered in a fair spirit. The Bill now before the Committee was an entirely different Bill from the measure which was read a second time, and he had some doubt as to whether the title would cover the proposal of the Government. However, he would close his eyes to that, as the Bill would be for the benefit of the public in Belfast; but it should not be all give on their part and all take

  1127
  on the part of the Government. He wished to know whether the Government would accede to his proposition, not that appeals should be suspended, but that the time limit for them should be extended. He had had no opportunity of putting his Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he desired to indicate the attitude of the Government on the matter. His hon. friend the Member for North Belfast had moved an Amendment in which the hon. and learned Member for North Louth had concurred. The hon. and learned Member wished to know what was the attitude of the Government as to the question of extending the time for appeals. That proposal, or rather a proposal somewhat akin to it, was put before him yesterday, and for his part he would not object to it. There appeared to be a consensus of opinion that the period during which appeals should be lodged should be extended.
  MR. DILLONsaid he desired to know what would be the exact effect of the two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Belfast. He was not absolutely clear as to how it was proposed that the revision should be carried out. As he understood it, it was proposed that certain new buildings which under ordinary circumstances would be valued by the revisers and added to the rating list should be brought in under the Act. How could that be done? Was it to be done under the new or the old system?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the Amendment of his hon. friend provided that the revision would be carried out on the old valuation.
  MR. TULLYasked whether the final report of Commissioner Barton would be issued.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it would not be necessary.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  MR. T. M. HEALYmoved to insert words extending the time of appeal to the 1st of March, 1903.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid he desired to move an Amendment that the revaluation might at the option of the appellent be computed as from the 1st of November, 1902.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that that would shorten the time by six months.
  Bill reported; as amended considered; an Amendment made. Bill read the third time, and passed.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended considered. Bill read the third time and passed.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 22nd day of July last Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Five of the clock, a.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order) and suspended for the remainder of the session.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

  DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND STREET WIDENINGS) BILL.
  SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, (according to Order), and agreed to.
  GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4.) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
  Forty-fifth Detailed Annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths,
  862
  and Marriages in Scotland (Abstracts of 1899).

  AFRICA (No. 1) (1901).
  Report by His Majesty's Commissioner on the East African Protectorate.
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
  Abstract of the returns made to the Board of Trade of shipping casualties which occurred on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, from 1st July, 1899, to 30th June, 1900; and shipping casualties which occurred to British vessels elsewhere than on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the coasts, or in rivers or harbours, of British Possessions abroad, reported during the same period; with charts and appendices.
  BOARD OF TRADE (TRADE UNIONS).
  Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on Trade Unions in 1900.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  1 General report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1900.

  2. Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st March, 1901, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  3. Similar Returns during the six months ended 30th June, 1901.

  FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES.
  Statement of the rates of import duties levied in European countries, in the United States, and in Japan, upon the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom.

  BOARD OF TRADE (PROPOSED NEW-GERMAN TARIFF).
  Translation of the proposed new German Customs Tariff, with comparison, as far as possible, of the rates of Customs

  863
  duty contained in the proposed tariff, with the rates at present in force on imports into Germany from the United Kingdom.

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 329, Malta (Report for 1900).
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Proclamation issued by Lord Kitchener, as Administrator of the Transvaal, on 1st July, 1901, respecting payments under contracts to purchase or lease land or mining rights, etc., entered into prior to the war.

  NAVY.
  Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of navy rations, etc.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Additional and Amending General Orders for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.

  1. Reserve.—Further regulations relating to the Army Reserve.
  2. Militia.—Further regulations relating to the Militia.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER.)
  Order made by the county council of the county of Lancaster re-dividing the Eccles Parliamentary Division into con venient polling districts.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Four Orders relating to the foreign animals wharves at Deptford and Cardiff.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  National Gallery (Purchase of Adjacent Land).
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  ROYAL TITLES BILL [H.L.].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

  MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

  EARLY CLOSING OF SHOPS.
  BETTING.
  Message from the Commons for copies of the Reports, etc., from the Select Committees. Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
  EAST INDIA LOAN (GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY DEBENTURES) BILL.—(The Earl of Hardwicke.) (No. 205.)
  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.—(The Lord Kenyon.) (No. 206.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.) (No. 207.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(The Lord Ashbourne.) (No. 208.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Denbigh, I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Congested

  865
  Districts Board, which was formed some years ago by Mr. Arthur Balfour, has from time to time needed amendments in its original constitution, and this short Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons, is, like the other Amendments that have been agreed to, designed to smooth the operations and facilitate the working of the Board. The first clause is introduced for the purpose of facilitating the management of land by the Congested Districts Board. The provision is safeguarded by the fact that its operation is in the hands of a public board, that three-fourths of the tenants in number and value must initiate what is to be done, and that full power is given to the County Courts to see that ample compensation in exchange or money is given for the farm taken. The other clauses of the Bill are also intended to improve the machinery of the Board, and in these circumstances I hope your Lordships will accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to enable the Government to obtain some land adjacent to the National Gallery in order to make adequate provision against fire in that building. Only the other day a fire broke out in a house very close to the National Gallery, and the danger in that way is so great that a measure of this kind is necessary and advisable in the interest of the great works of art contained in the building. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, before the Bill is read a second time I should like to call attention to the fact that it
  866
  is a Bill which enables land to be taken compulsorily. That is a very serious matter at this period of the session. I have, however, had a conversation with my right hon. friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, and I understand that he is prepared to omit the compulsory powers and that an Amendment to that effect will be moved in Committee. In these circumstances, although I am bound to say it is very late in the session for a Bill of this kind to be introduced, I do not think it right, having regard to the considerations which have been advanced by my noble friend, to oppose the Bill. But the taking of land compulsorily should not be allowed unless an opportunity is afforded to persons who may be injuriously affected to object.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported, without amendment, and read 3a.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I now beg to move an Amendment to carry out the suggestion made by the Chairman of Committees omitting the provision dealing with the compulsory powers of taking land.
  Amendment made.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not think it will be necessary to inform your Lordships that the Bill has received very full and detailed discussion both in a Standing Committee of the other House and in the House itself. It is in no sense a contentious measure, and, although there have been considerable differences of opinion with regard to details, the discussions have been carried on on both sides of the House of Commons in a businesslike manner, and with a

  867
  desire to come to the most satisfactory conclusions possible, with regard to the details of this very large and complicated measure. Considerable Amendments have been embodied in the Bill, and it comes to your Lordships' House with the good wishes of all who desire to see it passed. No new principle is embodied in the measure. It carries out two objects; first, it amends the Factory and Workshop Act in several respects in which experience has shown that amendment is needed. I think it will be recognised by all that it will be an immense boon to all concerned to have the whole law consolidated in one Act, as is done in this Bill. Owing to the late period of the session at which the Bill comes before your Lordships, I do not think it will be considered necessary that I should address the House at any length on the subject, but I should like to call attention to one or two of the principal changes in the law which are brought about by this Bill, and to one or two of the most important points in the measure. The first important point to which I will refer is the question dealing with dangerous trades. Under the existing state of the law some inconvenience is found, and the Bill proposes that in any dangerous trade the Secretary of State shall have the power to draft the regulations which are to be enforced in factories where a dangerous trade is being carried on. There will be the fullest opportunity to those affected; they will have a hearing, before a competent person who will be appointed for the purpose, with regard to the regulations which have been made. After that hearing it will lie in the power of the Secretary of State to deal with the matter, and he will have the full responsibility subject to the control of Parliament. The Bill also deals with the regulation of work which is given out, as it is thought that places of this kind should be under proper inspection and control. The Bill deals with a number of other matters, such as ventilation, drainage, inspection of steam boilers, and also with the fish curing and fruit preserving industries. As those industries depend on perishable articles it is necessary that the stringent regulations with regard to hours should not be enforced, but at the same time it has been thought that there is no
  868
  reason why the other regulations with regard to factories should not obtain. Therefore the Bill proposes to extend those regulations to these two particular industries. These are the prominent features, and they are matters of detail and not of principle. As to the laundry question, when the Bill was considered it was thought desirable that the present law, which has not been found to work satisfactorily, should be amended, and therefore laundries were put into the Bill for the purpose of being regulated. In the Standing Committee there was a very full and long discussion on the matter, and very strong objection was taken by the Irish Members to any inspection of laundries carried on in conventual establishments. Finally the Bill went to the House with a clause in it dealing with laundries with the exception of this particular class which were not to be inspected. This was following a course of procedure which had been adopted on previous occasions when some objections were taken by the Irish Members. When the matter came before the whole House the Home Secretary was placed in a great difficulty. It was his desire to see the laundries continued in the Bill. At the same time he had to consider the Bill as a whole. There was the strongest objection to exempted laundries being in competition with other laundries, while on the other hand the Irish Members were determined, in any case, to prevent inspection, and the Home Secretary finally decided to omit the clause altogether. This was carried by an overwhelming majority. This is not the first time that pressure had been brought to bear, and certainly it is not the first time that at this late period of a session it has been found necessary to omit clauses owing to the exigencies of the moment. It will be admitted, I think, that if there ever was a Bill in which such a necessity might arise it is in the case of this large Bill, which contains no less than 162 clauses and covers over 100 pages of printed matter. It will be impossible for the Government to agree to any Amendment in your Lordships' House in opposition to the striking out of the clause, for that would endanger the passing of the Bill. Of course, the Government did not pledge themselves with regard to the future. The whole matter can be left open to be dealt with,

  869
  if thought desirable, on another occasion. One other point to which I wish to refer is the Saturday half-holiday. The Home Secretary resisted the proposal that it should commence at 12 o'clock instead of 1 o'clock, but the decision of the House was against the Government. My right hon. friend accepted that decision, and the Government cannot accept any Amendment on that matter. I hope I have said enough to induce your Lordships to pass the Bill without any substantial Amendments.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Belper.)
  *LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, I do not wish to occupy the time of the House with any remarks upon the Second Reading, because I have no objection to what is contained in the Bill, but to what is omitted. I think that some protest should be made with regard to the little opportunity we have had of examining this Bill, as it was not printed till this morning. I only rise now to intimate that in Committee I shall move a clause dealing with laundries, inserting the clause as amended in the other House, with the addition of what was known as Mr. Talbot's Amendment.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just spoken in protesting against the position in which the House of Lords is placed by having this long and important Bill brought forward on the last night but one of the session. I believe that I am the sole representative of the Opposition present, and the Government may blame the noble Lords who support me for not being present. But the practice is of long standing, and I find even the usually well filled benches opposite rather bare. I therefore most earnestly protest againt a Bill of this magnitude and importance being brought on at so late a period of the session. This Bill, as the noble Lord who introduced it said, consolidates the present law and enacts certain new clauses. I do not propose to discuss the general enactments of the Bill; they are no doubt of considerable importance, and I should be very sorry if they were not passed. At the same time I must refer to one grave omission from the Bill—the clause dealing with laundries. This question has been
  870
  before your Lordships on more than one occasion. When in 1891 the Government of the day introduced a Bill with regard to factories the question of laundries was prominently brought before your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Dunraven moved an Amendment, which met with considerable support, in favour of including laundries in the Act. In the Act of 1895, which was introduced by Lord Rosebery's Government and taken up by Lord Salisbury's Government, there was a clause referring to laundries, but it contained this important exception—
  "Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are (a) inmates of any prison, reformatory, or industrial school or other institution for the time being subject to inspection under any Act other than this Act; or (b) inmates of an institution conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes. "Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there, or in which the number of persons ordinarily employed (exclusive of such members, if any) does not exceed two."
  The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, admitted that the clauses of that Act which referred to laundries—I mean the laundries held for profit by private people—were ineffective and unsatisfactory. What did the Secretary of State himself say with regard to this not long ago? He said—
  "But the Committee [the Committee of 1895] to which the Bill was referred did not accept the proposal in its entirety, for although it was not the intention of the Committee to remove laundries from the operations of the sanitary provisions they thought that the nature of the operations carried on in laundries required some relaxation of the law with respect to the daily distribution of the hours of labour. However, the clause embodying the regulations approved by that Committee was drawn in so hazy a fashion that it did not carry out what I believe were the intentions of the Committee, and as a fact it has been found practically incapable of enforcement for many reasons."
  Therefore the Bill as it now stands, without any reference to laundries, will continue what has been found to be a great hardship with regard to those employed in laundries. As the noble Lord has stated, in the present Bill there was originally a clause dealing with laundries, and though exceptions were attached to it in Grand Committee, I would much rather have had the clause with the exceptions than no clause at all. I do not believe that a laundry which is

  871
  carried on under proper sanitary conditions would on that account be unable to compete with other laundries. As to the religious question, anyone who has been long in Ireland must have admiration for the great philanthropic work done by the nuns. They appear to object to inspection of the laundries attached to their convents, and I regret it exceedingly, because in the great majority of cases they conduct the laundries in a perfectly efficient and satisfactory manner, and they can have nothing to fear from inspection, while by refusing it they will, I am afraid, put themselves under suspicion. I noticed that in another place a well known member of the Roman Catholic faith approved of an Amendment which enabled inspection to be made, and that gives me some hope that even in Ireland an arrangement might be made whereby these regulations could be applied. I most strongly and earnestly protest against the omission of the laundry clause. There is no class which more requires protection than the laundry workers, who number, in London alone, something like 100,000; and it is lamentable that the Government should have surrendered the clause. Whether it was to placate the Irish or to prevent the holidays from being delayed for a few days, the Government have taken a very serious responsibility. The present Goveznment are in a very different position from the Government of 1895, for the former have an enormous majority and the later were dependent on the votes of the Irish. I trust that the Bill will become law; but I deeply regret that it does not deal with a hard-working class which has too long been neglected.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I rise with the greatest reluctance, but I feel compelled to join in the protest against the introduction of a Bill of this kind at this period of the session. We are on the eve of the holidays, and during the recess some of us may attend public meetings, and at these meetings the question is sometimes asked, "Is the House of Lords worth preserving?" What is the use of the House of Lords if a Bill of this magnitude and importance is to be presented at a time when it cannot be dis-
  872
  cussed, and when it is forced, practically, down our throats whether we like it or not? If ever there was a Bill which should be referred to the Standing Committee of your Lordships' House, it is the measure now before us; but yet so little regard have the Government to the functions of that Committee that they actually propose to pass the Bill without submitting it to the consideration and criticism of that Committee. My experience of the House is not large enough to entitle me to criticise its procedure, but the proposal of the Government appears to me so monstrous a proceeding that I trust I may be forgiven for raising my voice in protest against it.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
  House in Committee accordingly.

  Clauses 1 to 57 agreed to.

  Clause 58 amended, and agreed to.

  Clause 59 agreed to.

  Clause 60 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 61 to 81 agreed to.

  Clause 82 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.

  Clause 87 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 88 to 92 agreed to.

  Clause 93 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.

  Clause 96 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 97 to 102 agreed to.

  LORD BELPER: I now have to move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 102. As the Laundry Clause has been struck out, it is necessary to insert this new clause, which is taken from the Act of 1895, so that it may be consolidated with the rest of the law.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause after Clause 102:—

  (1) In every laundry carried on by way of trade, or for purposes of gain, the following provisions shall apply:—

  (a) The period of employment, exclusive of meal hours and absence from work, shall not exceed, for women fourteen hours, for young persons twelve hours, and for children ten hours in any consecutive twenty-four hours; nor a total for women and young persons of sixty hours, and for children of thirty hours, in any one week, in addition to such overtime as may be allowed in the case of women.

  873

  (b) A woman, young person, or child must not be employed continuously for more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal.

  (c) Women, young persons, and children employed in the laundry shall have allowed to them the same holidays as are allowed to women, young persons, and children employed in a factory or workshop under this Act.

  (d) So far as regards provisions with respect to health and safety, accidents, education of children, notice of occupation of a factory or workshop, the affixing of abstracts and notices and the matters to be specified in those notices (so far as they apply to laundries), powers of inspectors, fines, and legal proceedings for any failure to comply with the provisions of this section, this Act shall have effect as if every laundry in which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used in aid of the laundry process were a factory, and every other laundry were a workshop, and as if every occupier of a laundry were the occupier of a factory or of a workshop.

  (e) The notice to be affixed in the laundry shall specify the period of employment and the times for meals, but the period and times so specified may be varied before the beginning of employment on any day.

  (f) The provisions of this Act prohibiting the employment of women within four weeks after childbirth, and of children under the age of twelve years, shall apply to the laundry in like manner as to a factory or workshop.

  (2) Women employed in laundries may work overtime, subject to the following conditions, namely:—

  (a) A woman must not work more than fourteen hours in any day; and

  (b) The overtime worked must not exceed two hours in any day; and

  (c) Overtime must not be worked on more than three days in any week or more than thirty days in any year; and

  (d) The requirements of section sixty of this Act with respect to notices must be observed.

  (3) In the case of every laundry worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power—

  (a) A fan or other means of a proper construction must be provided, maintained, and used for regulating the temperature in every ironing-room, and for carrying away the steam in every washhouse in the laundry; and

  (b) All stoves for heating irons must be sufficiently separated from any ironing-room, and gas irons emitting any noxious fumes must not be used; and

  (c) The floors must be kept in good condition and drained in such manner as will allow the water to flow off freely.

  A laundry in which these provisions are contravened shall be deemed to be a factory not kept in conformity with this Act.

  (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are—

  (a) Inmates of any prison, reformatory, or industrial school, or other institution for the
  874
  time being subject to inspection under any Act other than this Act; or

  (b) Inmates of an institution conducted in good faith for religious purposes; or

  (c) Members of the same family dwelling there,

  or in which not more than two persons dwelling elsewhere are employed."—(Lord Belper).

  *LORD WINDSORmoved as an Amendment the insertion of the clause struck out of the Bill, modifying it, after the first three sub-sections, by the inclusion, as the fourth sub-section, of what was known as Mr. Talbot's Amendment—namely—
  "Where the only persons working in any laundry are the inmates of an institution of a reformatory character, and the managers of that institution represent in writing to the Secretary of State that any specified provisions of this Act cannot be carried out in that laundry without prejudicially affecting the discipline of that institution, the Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that this is the ease, by order, under Section 121 of this Act, modify the requirements of this Act in their application to that laundry."
  This Amendment, he said, appeared on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons, and, though it was not reached, he believed it had the approval of the Home Secretary. His Amendment, therefore, would consist of the first three sub-sections of the clause which had been struck out, Mr. Talbot's Amendment as the fourth sub-section, and the following as the fifth sub-section—
  "Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there."
  It was admitted in all parts of the House of Commons except one—namely, by certain representatives from Ireland—that it was desirable to include laundries of all kinds in the Bill. As to the argument that the Bill could only be saved by the sacrifice of the provision respecting laundries, he admitted that it would have carried great weight if the measure had been purely of an amending character. But this was a consolidating Bill, which was supposed to gather together the complicated strings of various other Acts of Parliament, and make the law on the subject definite and capable of being easily understood. The Government intended to introduce a clause which would leave the law respecting laundries as it was at this moment. That was extremely unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary himself had expressed the view

  875
  that the present state of the law with regard to laundries was unsatisfactory and confused. There was evidence that in many instances laundries under charitable institutions were conducted in a way which would not be allowed if Government inspectors had to report upon them. It was a great blot on this measure that laundries should be excluded from the benefit of the Act. If an Amendment were made by that House he ventured to think that it would not be impossible for the Government to press it and pass it in the other House, though perhaps it might involve the addition of a few days to the session.
  Amendment moved.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, there are so many topics dealt with in this Bill in which, during my parliamentary life, I have taken very great interest, that I trust your Lordships will allow me to deal with the critical situation which has now arisen. There is no member of the Government who does not admit that there is a great deal of force in the criticisms that have been made; it cannot be doubted that the position of this House in the exercise of its great and responsible duties with regard to this Bill is a very regrettable one. But it is necessary to treat this matter practically. It is useless for us to discuss upon whom the fault lies for the Bill being presented so late to this House; there have been circumstances of great difficulty connected with the action of Parliament during the present session, and I am sure the Home Secretary, who has shown the greatest interest in the measure, has done his best to produce it to your Lordships' House at the earliest moment.
  But I am sure your Lordships will agree that if fault lies with anyone, there is one class to whom it cannot attach, for surely the factory operatives, on whom the disaster of this Bill being rejected will fall, have committed no fault. I venture, therefore, to beg of you to consider whether it will be wise, because it is thought someone is at fault, to throw the burden of that fault on those who would otherwise receive great benefits under the Bill? The measure is, no doubt, to a great extent a consolidating Bill, but it also contains new and improved
  876
  legislation. I could point to clause after clause which will confer immense benefit on those employed in factories and others. These clauses can, with your Lordships' permission, become law; and surely it is not advisable, because the Bill is not quite complete, to wreck it altogether. Lord Windsor has termed this till almost a perfect Bill, and yet because one clause is absent it is sought to throw out a Bill so full of benefits affecting the lives of factory operatives. I ask noble Lords to consider what will be gained thereby. You will be in no better position with regard to laundries, and you will have denied to the working classes the hundred beneficent provisions of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Windsor was perfectly correct in saying that the Home Secretary had declared that the state of the law with-regard to laundries was most unsatisfactory. My right hon. friend still entertains that view, and he has pledged himself to do his utmost to bring about an amendment in the law. I therefore, ask your Lordships not to refuse this beneficent legislation on account of the absence of one clause.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the assumption which underlies the argument just addressed to the House is that it is quite impossible, if the Amendment is carried, to carry the Amendment also in the other House of Parliament. There is nothing to convince the House of that, except that the Government have been themselves convinced. I am not convinced at all that it is impossible. It is quite possible the Government may decline to undertake the labour of forcing the clause through the House of Commons, but that they have not the power to carry the Amendment through that House is a matter which I have not heard any argument sufficient to prove. Meanwhile it is proposed that a large section of women workers engaged in laundries who cannot protect themselves should be altogether excluded from the protection which is given to working women in every other industry. The position would be different if the Government said that they had the matter in their mind, and that they did intend to take it up, and not to leave the women employed in laundries outside the benefits

  877
  of the Bill. Am I to understand that that is the intention?
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: That, is exactly what I had hoped to say, if I did not say it.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Are we to understand that we may accept that as a distinct intention on the part of the Government to deal with the laundries in the next session of Parliament, or very soon afterwards?
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I cannot say next session, but at the earliest practicable opportunity open to us.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The statement just made alters the position very considerably, and I hope the Government will bear in mind what is implied in such an announcement of their intention, and that we shall not see these poor women left out of consideration for any considerable period, because there is difficulty in obtaining proper protection for them in the present session.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I only wish to intervene for a moment in order to point out that the statement of the, noble Lord goes considerably beyond what the Secretary of State, said in the House of Commons. What the Secretary of State said was of the vaguest possible character. He said, if my recollection is clear, that he was not without hope that at some not remote period he might be able to deal with this question, possibly by an arrangement which he had hitherto failed to effect. That is very different from the promise which the most rev. Prelate has been given by the noble Lord.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERclaimed justification for saying something on this subject, inasmuch as he was himself the executive head of two of the largest institutions connected with the Church of England for the care and reformation of young women of the class referred to, and he also for many years had a place on the council of a third. To praise the devotion of the ladies to whom these duties were entrusted was unnecessary. Their work was beyond praise, but, so far as the Church of England Homes were concerned, he was anxious to emphasise the fact that, quite
  878
  apart from their earnestness and devotion to what they rightly deemed to be religious duty, they constantly endeavoured so to arrange their work and to manage their institutions as to fall into line with every reasonable improvement or regulation laid down respecting laundries and factories that were under Government inspection. He did not know what the motives were of those in Ireland who advocated the exemption of laundries from inspection if they were connected with religious communities, but he did know that the institutions on this side of St. George's Channel which were connected with the Church of England were not only ready to be inspected, but desired and welcomed it on every ground. Therefore they ought to be relieved from the suspicion, utterly untrue, of having joined hands with those who had asked to be relieved from periodical and reasonable Government inspection. The suspicion that those who asked to be relieved did so because of something of which they were ashamed might be unfair, but at least it was a perfectly natural suspicion. The institutions for whom he spoke were lumped together with those who were objecting on the other side of the St. George's Channel. It was an utter mistake. They desired the fullest light thrown on everything they did, and they were more than ready to accept direction and advice on all such matters as sanitation, safety of workers, and hours work. The right rev. Prelate read a resolution which had been unanimously passed by the council of one of the largest of these institutions connected with the Church of England, namely, the great Magdalen Hospital at Streatham, declaring that the inspection of laundries connected with religious and charitable institutions ought to be welcomed, provided always that power was left with the Government or the inspector to sanction such deviation from or modification in the rules laid down for public laundries as should render those rules applicable to institutions in which the workers were resident inmates for whose moral good the institutions were being carried on. That was, he said, the general opinion of those responsible for the management of these large institutions in connection with the Church of England, and it would be most unfair to them if that were not said publicly to-day.
  LORD BELPER: I should like to say, on behalf of the Home Secretary, that my right hon. friend has repeatedly expressed himself in the strongest way as anxious to see legislation passed in regard to this matter. I ask your Lordships to consider whether or not the Government and the Members of the House of Commons are better judges of the possibility of passing a measure like this if the Amendment is accepted than the Members of your Lordships' House? I assure your Lordships that the Government are as anxious as anyone to see legislation passed on this subject, and the Home Secretary authorises me to say that, although he cannot pledge himself with regard to the date, or whether next session, he hopes at an early period to be able to deal with this question and to find a satisfactory solution for it. I do not think that your Lordships can expect anything more clear than that.
  EARL SPENCER: I have already stated my views clearly, and I strongly support my noble friend Lord Windsor. I desire to see the Bill passed, though the Government has put the House in a curious dilemma. In the event of a division I shall vote with my noble friend, and the Government must take the responsibility.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: No, you take the responsibility if you throw out the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I assure the noble Earl that those who are responsible to some extent for the Bill feel that if the Amendment is now carried it will inevitably result in the loss of the Bill. Noble Lords must be aware of the fact that at some periods of the session, particularly on the last day but one, it is almost impossible to procure a majority in matters in which there has been something in the nature of give and take in the House of Commons. I do not mean to say there has been any pledge; it does not amount to that. The theory was that it was agreed to let this question stand as it was, and the Bill has come up to your Lordships' House in that form. I hope that the question will not be pushed to a division. I have not calculated whether there are thirty Mem-
  880
  bers present, but, if there are not, then the debate is automatically adjourned until to-morrow. Is this a desirable position in which the House should be placed? I assure the noble Lord that, if the Bill is postponed over this evening, it will in all probability be lost.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am very far from wishing to cast any doubts on the anxiety of noble Lords opposite with regard to this legislation, but I would point out that their zeal would have been better shown if they had not pinched the House in the last two days of the session to carry this Bill, and if they had brought it before the House of Commons at an earlier date than the last few days before the end of the session. If that is the example of flourishing zeal which the Government show in this question, I am at a loss to know what halfheartedness is in a matter of this kind. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that, if the Government do not obtain a quorum, the Bill will be postponed until to-morrow, and it might, therefore, be lost. Whose fault will that be? Who possesses the whole confidence of this House? Who have the support of thirty Members behind them to form a quorum, and who can be summoned at an instant's notice? Yet the Government come to the House in the closing hours of the session, and, with a pistol at our heads, say that we must pass this Bill, or, if we do not, we shall show a want of zeal. I venture to think that this is playing with the House; it is deriding your Lordships; it is treating the House with less respect than it has a right to claim or expect. If the zeal of the Government is so great, where is the Prime Minister? The noble Marquess would at least be one of the quorum. Where are the other members of the Government—less conspicuous, but equally available for the purpose of a quorum? Before the responsibility is cast on noble Lords who insist upon a clause which they believe to be right, and still more on the Opposition, the House should have some clearer demonstration of the zeal of the Government than has been afforded with reference to their procedure this evening.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I regret that the noble Earl has intro-

  881
  duced a tone of party conflict into this debate. The noble Earl asks, "Where is the zeal of the Government? Where are their followers? "I would ask the noble Earl, "Where are his followers?"
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I have none.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I thought that, as the noble Earl spoke from the Table, he was speaking on behalf of others.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Lord forgets that I have a right to speak from that position as a Privy Councillor.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I can assure my noble friend that I will dispute nothing with him, but I hope he will let me say that I am sorry he was not in the House when I pointed out that there were probably some hundred beneficent provisions of this almost perfect Bill, which will tend to save human life and ameliorate the conditions of work in factories. If the Bill is thrown out noble Lords will not punish the Government so much as the people employed in factories anxiously hoping for the measure to pass.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Lord surely feels that the responsibility rests with the Government in not having their supporters behind them.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The responsibility rests with everyone. But the main consideration now is that every factory in Lancashire wishes this Bill to be passed; and I ask the House to consider the effect of saying "Yes" or "No" to the point under discussion. Surely as the present position, from whatever cause it has arisen, must be dealt with, the responsibility of throwing out the Bill will rest upon those who say "Not content" to the motion now before the Committee. Those who support the motion bear no share in the responsibility of rejecting the Bill.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERhoped the question as to where the responsibility lay in this matter would not divert attention from the real point. He expressed the extreme dissatisfaction which many noble Lords felt at the
  882
  result which had been arrived at on the question of laundries. From the result of private inquiries carefully made he believed that if the attendance of Bishops had been larger and if a division were taken the Bench of Bishops would almost unanimously go into the lobby and affirm the proposition that the institutions which they represented desired and invited inspection. The Government had been obliged to come to terms with a force of opinion representing a particular religious body, but apparently not even the whole of that religious body. It was a religious body in one part of these kingdoms only. But surely if private institutions were to be allowed to come into the competitive field against ordinary traders, and to make the claim that their business should be conducted secretly, and that they should be allowed any amount of control over those in the institutions, a claim of that kind ought at least to be made unitedly. It ought not to come from one section of opinion, and if from one section it ought not to be respected and deferred to.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he must call attention to the extraordinary doctrines that had been enunciated. It was said that if a particuticular Amendment was carried the Bill must fail in the Commons. No doubt at this period of the session the Government majority was a doubtful factor; but the Government could try it. If the House of Commons refused to agree to the Amendment, the Bill would come back, and then, if the House of Lords persisted with the Amendment, there were other processes to arrive at an agreement. Lord James had said that this Bill had a hundred new points in it, and yet the House of Lords was told to take it or leave it, and, having had no opportunity of considering these new points, they were told that if they insisted on one Amendment the Government would not attempt to press the Bill. That was the way in which a Conservative Government supported the House of Lords.
  On Question, new clause moved by Lord Belper agreed to.
  Clause 103, amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 104:
  EARL SPENCER: I should like to ask what the intention of this clause is, and whether it will apply to dockers.
  LORD BELPER: I understand that the point has been very carefully considered, and that dockers do come under the clause.
  Clause 104, and remaining clauses, agreed to, with drafting Amendments.
  Amendments reported.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) (No 2) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL SPENCER: This Bill has passed the House of Commons without any dissent, and I do not think there will be any opposition to it in your Lordships' House. It is a very short Bill, and amends the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1889. The Bill provides that that Act, as amended by any enactment, shall, subject to the provisions of this Bill, apply with the necessary modifications in the case of a tenant desirous of purchasing land, notwithstanding that the sale of his holding is not about to be made under the Land Purchase Act. Clause 2 enacts that where a tenant to whom an advance is made in pursuance of this Act is the proprietor of a holding charged with an annuity under the Land Purchase Acts, an account shall be taken of the amount outstanding in respect of the original advance, and the original holding, and any additional parcel of land purchased under this Act shall be deemed one holding, and shall be charged with a new annuity for the repayment of such outstanding amount, together with the amount of the advance made in respect
  884
  of such additional parcel, and shall be discharged from the annuity payable in respect of the original advance. An annuity payable in pursuance of this section will continue for such term of years as the Land Commission, on the application of the purchaser, may determine. The Bill will be very useful in Ireland to both landlords and tenants, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 21"—(Earl Spencer.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Committee negatived; then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX and XLV. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

  COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, this Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House last session, and passed through every stage, but on its reaching the House of Commons there was such opposition to one clause that the Government felt constrained to withdraw the Bill. That clause was what was termed the "whipping clause." Throughout the whole of my parliamentary life I have been an opponent of flogging as a punishment. I believe it amounts to torture, and has no good effect in the end, and I was therefore very much annoyed to find the Bill treated as a flogging Bill. Nothing was further from my mind. The object of the Bill was to prevent young children being sent to prison, and it was thought that in default of a fine being paid the child should not be sent to prison but should be whipped with a birch rod. Last year the number of children who

  885
  were sent to prison was 1,200. The object of this Bill, amongst others, is to lessen this number, and prevent young children from being contaminated by prison life. Under the Bill a court of sum nary jurisdiction, on remanding or committing for trial any child or young person, may, instead of committing him to prison, remand or commit him into the custody of any fit person named in the commitment who is willing to receive him, to be detained in that custody for the period for which he has been remanded, or until he is thence delivered by due course of law. The Bill also provides that where a child or young person is charged with any offence for the commission of which a fine, damages, or costs may be imposed upon him, and there is reason to believe that his parent or guardian has conduced to the commission of the alleged offence by wilful default or by habitually neglecting to exercise due care of him, the court may, on information, issue a summons against the parent or guardian of the child or young person charging him with so contributing to the commission of the offence, and when, after the hearing of the case, any fine, damages, or costs are imposed upon the child or young person, and the court is satisfied that his parent or guardian has conduced to the commission of the offence by wilful default, the court may order that the fine, etc., shall be paid by the parent or guardian. These provisions have already received the sanction of the House, and I trust there will be no objection to the Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith; Amendments made; Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BURGH SEWERAGE, DRAINAGE, AND WATER SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): This Bill deals with two domestic matters which were neglected to be dealt with in the Act of 1897. One refers to the method of procuring a water supply for burghs above a population of 5,000, which must now proceed by private Bill, and the other is connected with the assessments for sewerage and water supply. At present one is placed on the owners and the other on the occupiers, but by this Bill it is proposed that they should be equally divided between the two classes, as is the case with all other burgh assessments in Scotland.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  EX-PROFESSORS OF QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Irish Government and His Majesty's Treasury have considered the equitable as distinguished from the legal aspect of the case of the professors of the former Queen's University in Ireland after the erection of the Royal University; and whether the Government will lay on the Table of the House the correspondence which has passed between them and Professor Pye and other professors of the Queen's College as well as the colleges themselves on this question. I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I explain my reasons for asking this question. The House will recollect that a good many years ago an Act was passed creating a new university in Ireland, called the Royal University. That Act was passed in 1879, and it affected to a great extent the Queen's Colleges, and, of course, did away entirely with the Queen's University. The question has arisen as to how far the Act affected the various professors connected with the three Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and there was a correspondence upon the point whether the professors had any right to compensation

  887
  for the loss which they had sustained in consequence of the passing of the Act, for I think it is admitted that they have not had so many fees and the same chance of promotion as they might have had if that Act had not been passed. The matter was referred to the Irish Government more than once, and up to 1883 the answer had always been that there was no legal claim whatever on the part of the professors. One of the professors then appealed to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and that court decided that the Act which regulated these matters did not meet the case, and therefore did not apply or give a legal position to the professors. It is not merely a question of the strictly legal position; there is the equitable aspect of the case. When I was in Ireland one of these gentlemen—Professor Pye—wrote to the Irish Government and received a reply, which no doubt I sanctioned, in February, 1884, in which he was informed that the further consideration of the matter must be deferred until more experience had been gained. That does not deliberately state that were was an equitable claim, but I think it may be inferred from that there was, in the opinion of the Irish Government of that day, some claim for consideration. Later on there was a still stronger opinion expressed. Correspondence between the colleges and the Irish Government took place at various dates, and the colleges were referred to the reply which was given when I was Lord Lieutenant; but in January of 1886 a more direct answer was made. On 20th January, 1886, the Irish Government wrote—
  "His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has inquired into the case, and admits the hardship, but the present is not an opportune time to approach the Treasury."
  It is therefore evident that the Irish Government at that time thought there was a hardship, and that the Treasury ought properly to consider it; and when the Act of 1879 was introduced in this House by the Lord Chancellor of the day, the noble and learned Lord used words which certainly may be quoted as favourable to this view. Lord Cairns said—
  "Our intention and anxiety has been not in any way to interfere with the Queen's Colleges,
  888
  and if there is any change whatever it is for their advantage, for they will be connected with a university larger and more extensive, and, I hope, stronger than ever the Queen's University has been."
  That certainly has not been the result, because, as I understand, several of these professors have been deprived of nearly half the salary which they received previous to the passing of the Act. I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I have myself no personal knowledge of this matter, but I have made inquiries into the subject, which is not a new one. It has been made the subject of departmental correspondence for many years, and as far back as November, 1887, when Professor Pye was informed that the claim put forward for compensation had been considered by the Treasury, and that they had arrived at the conclusion that the claim had not been substantiated. That did not satisfy Professor Pye, who, acting within his rights, appealed to the law. He instituted the proceedings referred to by the noble Lord, and the matter came before the Exchequer Division in Ireland, who arrived at the conclusion that, under the circumstances, no claim for compensation could be substantiated having regard to the University Education Act of 1879. The matter was afterwards brought forward in the House of Commons, and the Attorney General for Ireland (the present Mr. Justice Madden) stated that he had carefully examined the judgment of the Exchequer Division, and that it was quite clear that losses of the kind sustained by these professors could not form the basis of a claim to compensation under the Act of 1879. It was pointed out by the Treasury that the professors were not entitled to expect that no change would be made in the conditions affecting university education in Ireland during their tenure of their respective chairs, or, in the event of such a change, that the State would compensate them for any loss resulting therefrom. The Treasury have considered the matter in all its bearings, both legal and equitable, and have come to the conclusion that these, professors have ho

  889
  claim to condensation. I may say that Professor Pye, as recently as 15th March last, was informed by the Irish Government that this decision was final. Under the circumstances I cannot hold out any hope that the case will be reopened. With regard to the correspondence mentioned by the noble Earl, I am told by those responsible for the Departments that it is very voluminous, extending over many years, and it is not considered advisable or expedient to print it.

  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL.—PEERS' PROTESTS.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend the Duke of Newcastle I beg to move the motion standing in my name. I am told by a high authority in your Lordships' House that this is practically a motion of form, and that the application which the noble Duke makes has in all similar circumstances been invariably granted.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXV. be dispensed with and that the Duke of Newcastle be at liberty to sign before the Prorogation of Parliament, the Protest entered against the Third Reading of the Bill, although he was not present when the question was put.—(Lord Stanmore.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I for one cannot accept this motion. Standing Order XXXV. of your Lordships' House reads as follows—
  "Such Lords as shall make protestation or enter their dissents to any votes of this House, as they have a right to do without asking leave of the House, either with or without their reasons, shall cause their protestation or dissents to be entered into the Clerk's book the next sitting day of this House, before the hour of two o'clock, otherwise the same shall not be entered, and shall sign the same before the rising of the House the same day."…
  The Standing Orders have not been complied with in this case, and it seems to me that it would be stultifying all the reasons which we are in the habit of giving for adhering to our Standing Orders if we allow this motion.
  † The protests of early times are invariably prefaced by the memorandum that "before the putting of the Question" leave was asked and given to certain Lords to enter their dissents. The present Standing Order is (except as to the last fourteen words) identical with an Order made in 1641.—[ED.].
  LORD STANMORE: I was informed by the Clerk of Parliaments that this request had been invariably granted, and I remember perfectly well that a motion for the rejection of the Ecclesiastical Tithes Bill was moved by my father and a protest put in by him which was signed afterwards by several noble Lords who had not been able to be present.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It is not a question of whether they were present when the question was put, but the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House provided a limit of time within which such a course as this proposed by the noble Lord should be taken.
  EARL SPENCER: I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is right in saying that we should adhere as far as possible, to our Standing Orders. My noble friend has not said whether his distinguished father complied with the regulations as read by the Lord Chancellor.
  LORD STANMORE: The Protest was put in and the names allowed to be added afterwards.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (on motion).
  *LORD WINDSOR: Two Amendments have been made to this Bill in the House of Commons. One is a small drafting Amendment, and the other, I regret to say, is the omission of the libel clause to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had assented in this House. The law officers of the Crown, however, could not see their way to agree to it in the other House, and, as they gave me to understand that they could not assent to any clause which would have carried out the object I had in view, I was reluctantly obliged to drop the clause altogether.
  Moved, That this House agree with the House of Commons in their Amendments.—(Lord Windsor.)
  On Question, Commons' Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven of the clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.