Sitting of 18 February 1901

Preamble
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  THAMES AND SEVERN PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm an Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, for the transfer of the Thames and Severn Canal to the County Council of Gloucestershire; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.
  THAMES AND SEVERN PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm an Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, for the transfer of the Thames and Severn Canal to the County Council of Gloucestershire; and for other purposes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 1.]
PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ADULTS IN EVENING CLASSES).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Bradford; Brighton and Preston; Llanelly; and Calverley; to lie on the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1896.
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Little Hulton; Blean; and Hyde; to lie upon the Table.
  PURE BEER.
  Petitions for legislation, from Kington; Loughborough; Kimbolton; and Doncaster; to lie upon the Table.
  SINGH, MAGAN.
  Petition of Magan Singh, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Hammersmith, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
  Petition from Wickham Market, for cessation of farm-burning; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Leominster, for termination; to lie upon the Table.

  VIVISECTION.
  Petition from Notting Hill, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANK AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
  Annual Account presented, for the period ended 20th November, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 18.]
  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to the 5th January, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 19.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).
  Appropriation Accounts presented, for the year ending 31st March, 1900, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, and certain Reports upon Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 20.]
  SARDINIAN LOAN.
  Account presented, of the Total Sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund and advanced to His Majesty the King of Sardinia, and of the Sums received to 31st December, 1900, for Interest and Sinking Fund thereof [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 21.]
  MILK AND CREAM REGULATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire and report upon the desirability of Regulations, under Section 4 of The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, for Milk and Cream, with Appendices and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Copy presented, of Amended Rules made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the provisions of The Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868, for regulating the execution of Capital Sentences [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Mary Fox, a Convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the East End Refuge, Finchley [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings of the Commission during the month of October, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Report of the State of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year to 31st August 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 22.]
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh for the year 1899–1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 23.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. County Court Act, 1888, and Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879.—Copy of Order made by the Lord Chancellor, dated 29th January, 1901, directing that the Registrar of the County Court of Devonshire, held at Plymouth and East Stone house, shall not practise as a solicitor, and that Section 20 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers).
  290
  Act, 1879, shall not apply to the office of Registrar of the said County Court.
  2. Building Societies.—Copy of Sixth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the Proceedings of the Registrars under the Building Societies Acts, etc. [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 24.]

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE AND MERCANTILE MARINE (GREAT BRITAIN, ETC.)
  Return ordered, "showing aggregate Naval Expenditure on Seagoing Force;. Aggregate Revenue; Aggregate Tonnage of Mercantile Marine; Annual Clearances of Shipping in the Foreign Trade; Annual Clearances of Shipping in the Coasting Trade; Annual Value of Imports by Sea, including Bullion and Specie; and Annual Value of Exports by Sea, including Bullion and Specie, of various Countries, exclusive of China and South American Republics, but including British Self-governing Colonies, for the year 1900 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 380, of Session 2, 1900)."—(Sir John Colomb.)

  TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
  Return ordered, "of Accounts relating; to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1901.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Return, in part, presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 25.]

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Return ordered, "of the number of, Aliens that arrived from the Continent at Ports in the United Kingdom in each month of the year 1901."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Return, in part, presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 26.]

  COAL EXPORTS, ETC.
  Return ordered, "giving for the year 1900 the Export of Coal from each Port, in the United Kingdom to each Country Abroad, together with a Summary Statement showing the Export of Coal from the principal districts of the United Kingdom to the principal groups of Foreign Countries; and also showing the quantity of Coal shipped at each Port in the United Kingdom for ships' use on Foreign Voyages during the same period (in continuation of. Parliamentary Paper, No.

  291
  125, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—LORD ROBERTS AND "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."
  MR. PIRIE: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the telegram of 3rd June, 1900, published in Vol. II. South Africa Despatches from Lord Roberts in reply to General Buller, and stating that Lord Roberts's terms with the Transvaal Government are unconditional surrender, whether His Majesty's Government were informed prior to the sending of the telegram by the Commander-in-Chief of General Bidder's views, as expressed by him after his interview with General Botha, that about half the Transvaal forces then in the field were before him, and that he thought they were inclined to give in, and also of the terms mentioned by General Buller to the Boers, which terms were in his opinion suitable for the military situation to secure the surrender of the Boers, or if Lord Roberts acted on his own responsibility in this matter; and if no intimation of General Buller's views was at that time sent to His Majesty's Government, when was such intimation received, and was it taken into consideration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No communication was made to Her Majesty's Government, Lord Roberts acting under the general powers given to him. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I think General Buller's despatch is dated 9th July, and probably, therefore, reached us in August.

  POSITION OF SIR A. MILNER AND SIR W. HELY HUTCHINSON.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of Sir Alfred Milner and Sir Walter Hely Hutchinson respectively as regards the Governorship of Cape Colony and the High Commissionership of the two late Dutch Republics.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Sir Alfred Milner
  292
  became Administrator of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony on the departure of Lord Roberts from South Africa, and remains Governor of the Cape Colony until Sir W. Hely Hutchinson assumes the Governorship of the Cape-Colony. Sir Alfred Milner will continue to be High Commissioner for South Africa, but his relations as such with the late-Dutch Republics necessarily lapsed with their annexation.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that Sir W. Hely Hutchinson will assume the Governorship of the Cape Colony?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I should be sorry to fix a date at this moment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When will Sir Alfred Milner proceed to Pretoria?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give the information at present.

  SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTABULARY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the South African Constabulary were embarked per steamship I "Aurania" on Friday for the front, without arms and uniform, and totally undrilled.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: These 900 men of the South African Constabulary, like other detachments of the force sent from this country, will be attested on their arrival, and will then be provided with arms and uniform, and will be trained under the personal superintendence of Major-General Baden-Powell. A certain number of them have already served in the Army and Militia. These, and all other arrangements in connection with this force, have been made in strict accordance with General Baden-Powell's wishes and requirements.
  MR. LOUGH: What will be the total strength of the Constabulary force when this contingent arrives?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot now state with certainty what the total number will be when this contingent arrives in South Africa, but of course the hon. Member is aware what the strength of the force is to be eventually. I believe

  293
  that over 2,000 have been attested in this I country.

  TYPHOID FEVER AMONG THE SOUTH AFRICAN FORCES.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of typhoid fever among the forces in South Africa, and the number of deaths for each of the months of October, November, and December, and also the total number of cases of typhoid fever from the beginning of the war to 31st December last, giving the number of deaths, and the number sent home as invalids.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The figures are approximately as follow—October, 568 cases, 98 deaths; November, 1,213 cases, 207 deaths; December, 1,665 cases, 286 deaths. The total number of Cases from the beginning of the war to December, 1900, is 19,101 and of deaths 4,233. The number of officers and men invalided for enteric fever who have arrived in England from the beginning of the war to December, 1900, is 10,975.

  COLONIAL TROOPS IN SOUTH AFRICA —TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the terms of the original engagements of Brabant's Horse and the other, colonial troops that have taken part in the South African War differed in any, and what, respect, and especially as to the duration of the engagements, from the terms of which the Imperial Yeomanry and the British Volunteers were engaged.
  MR. BRODRICK: The terms of service of the colonial contingents varied considerably, and were different to those of the Imperial Yeomanry and British Volunteers. It is not possible to give the full details in reply to a question. All have been treated according to their engagements.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: But will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a statement of the different terms?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have made the only statement I can, but if the hon.
  294
  Member wishes to know the particulars of each engagement I will see what can be done.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is there any difference in the duration of the engagements?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have said that the terms vary.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Do these people get better pay than the common or garden Tommy Atkins?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether untrained men who have not hitherto formed part of the Yeomanry are accepted as Volunteers to the Imperial Yeomanry now proposed to be sent out to the war.
  MR. BRODRICK: All men accepted for the Imperial Yeomanry have to pass the riding and shooting tests previously imposed. They need not necessarily belong to the Yeomanry.

  MILITIA RE-EMBODIMENT.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to re-embody some or all the Militia now not embodied.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not in a position at present to reply to this question.

  ROYAL RESERVE REGIMENTS.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any scheme for continuing the existence of the Royal Reserve Regiments; and if he is aware that the delay in letting the men know whether they will be able to re-engage and the terms of re-engagement, is not only causing inconvenience to the men, but losing the services of many men who would otherwise have reengaged.
  MR. BRODRICK: A communication will be addressed to the men forthwith on this subject. An opportunity will be given to the men to re-engage on special terms for garrison duty. Any officer or non-commissioned officer who may not desire to return at once to civil life will be found temporary employment.

  PURCHASES OF HOUSES FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the number of horses bought for the South African army since the war began, specifying the number bought in Great Britain and the number bought in other countries; what was the average purchase price in each country; and what are the official reports as to the comparative merits of the animals bought in each country.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The total number of horses and cobs purchased for South Africa between October, 1899, and 31st January, 1901, was as follows:—Great Britain and Ireland, 35,775 horses; 3,827 cobs. Other countries, 36,314 horses; 35,506 cobs. Of the former about 80 per cent. were sent to South Africa. The English and Irish were considered the best, and the next best were the American and Canadian. It is not considered expedient to state the prices.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will you give me the figures for Ireland and Great Britain separately instead of lumping them together?
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot give them offhand, but will see if I can get them.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the number of troop horses purchased for the purpose of the South African war in Hungary, America, and Ireland respectively between 1st January and 31st December, 1900; and whether any agent was employed by the War Office during that period for the purchase of troop horses in the south of Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: The figures are as follows:—Hungary, 7,000; America, United States, 21,000: Canada, 3,750; Ireland, 6,178. Of those bought in Ireland about 20 per cent, were for units at home. Colonel Hanford was the agent employed in Ireland during the period referred to, and he bought horses in all parts of the country.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD)-BARTLETT: Can the noble Lord
  296
  state if in the American figures the horses from the Argentine are included?
  LORD STANLEY: No, these are not included, but I cannot say what numbers came from the Argentine.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask why preference was given to Hungary and America in view of the fact that Irish horses are the best in the world?
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the noble Lord state what part of the war tax is paid in Hungary and America?
  Another NATIONALIST MEMBER: And is it true that when the Irish Members opposed the War Vote an order was given that no more horses should be bought in Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  PEACE NEGOTIATIONS—LORD ROBERTS AND GENERAL BOTHA.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can communicate to the House full details of all communications which passed between Lord Roberts and any of the Boer generals in reference to negotiations for the conclusion of peace, and a full statement of the causes which prevented the proposed meeting between Lord Roberts and General Botha in June last.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir, I will lay the correspondence to-day. I owe the hon. Gentleman and the House an apology, which I take the first opportunity of tendering. In answer to the honourable Member's question interjected during my speech on Friday, I inadvertently stated that I believed the negotiations were stopped owing to the demand for independence. I find on referring to papers, which I had not at hand, that although Lord Roberts endeavoured to meet General Botha's wishes as to an armistice, the arrangement fell through because the armistice proposed by the Boers was one which on military grounds it was impossible to accept.

  ARMY CONTRACTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the increasing complaints that the supplies for the troops

  297
  in Ireland now largely consist of foreign materials, and that the number of local contractors is steadily diminishing; and whether he could furnish the House with any document showing who are the contractors to the Army in Ireland for all purposes and the nature and price of the materials supplied.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: At the same time may I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the proportion of foreign beef and mutton at present supplied to the troops stationed in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that cattle and sheep are produced in abundance in Ireland, and that Irish taxpayers contribute towards the maintenance of the Army, tenders will in future be inclusively for home fed meat.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of any complaints as to supplies of foreign materials to the troops in Ireland, except as regards meat, nor am I aware that local contractors are diminishing in number. When local manufacture exists in Ireland every effort is made to encourage it as far as possible. It would cause much labour to furnish from all stations in Ireland a list of the contractors and their supplies. As regards the meat supply the whole question of supply throughout the United Kingdom is being considered.
  MR. FLAVIN: May I ask how many Irish manufactured bicycles have been sent to South Africa?
  CAPT. DONELAN: How much do the countries which supply these foreign goods contribute towards the maintenance of the Army?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The noble Lord has referred to the trouble it would involve to give us this information. That is the very reason I want the Return. I want to cause trouble. I wish to ask the noble Lord if he will direct his subordinates to go to the trouble of furnishing the information?
  [No answer was returned to any of the questions.]

  ARMY BEER CONTRACTS AT THE CURRAGH.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the contract for the supply of
  298
  beer, porter, and stout to the regiments stationed at the Curragh, county Kildare, was not given to an Irish firm; and whether the Government has agreed to pay an English firm a price higher than that quoted by Irish breweries.
  LORD STANLEY: Discretion as to making contracts for the supply of malt liquor to the troops is vested in the General Officers Commanding Districts, who may either make a district contract or allow commanding officers of units to make their own. There is no regulation under which canteen contracts are bound to be placed locally, and it is a fact that a considerable amount of Irish stout is sold in canteens in England. It is not proposed to question the manner in which the General Officer Commanding has used his discretion.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: Will the noble Lord answer the latter portion of the question?
  LORD STANLEY: I think I have. We do not propose to question the discretion of the commanding officer.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Does the Irish beer supplied to soldiers contain no poison, and is that the reason you send for English beer?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  MARRIED SOLDIERS' SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the case of married soldiers serving in South Africa whose first period of enlistment had come to an end and whose discharge and admission into the Reserve would have taken place but for the war, with a view to granting separation allowance for their wives on the scale of that provided for the Reservists; and whether he is aware that there are many cases in which discharge had actually been sanctioned and yet stopped at the last moment, the hardship being great owing to many such men having married without leave in view of their then ancicipated approaching discharge into the Reserve.
  LORD STANLEY: In cases where a soldier married without leave would have become a Reservist but for the war, it will

  299
  be considered whether separation allowance can be issued by the Government. Every case must be dealt with on its merits.

  SUNDAY PUBLICATION OF TELEGRAMS FROM THE SEAT OF WAR.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, for what reason the Government have ceased to publish telegrams on Sundays at post offices giving information from South Africa, and to ask if they intend resuming the practice of publishing such telegrams during the continuance of the war.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General was informed by the Secretary of State for War in October last that in view of the alteration in the position of affairs in South Africa, he considered that the practice of telegraphing information for exhibition in post offices on Sundays might reasonably be discontinued, and the Postmaster General has no knowledge of any intention to resume the practice.
  MR. POWER: Did the military authorities cease the publication of the telegrams at the time the war was declared to be over?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They ceased to publish them in October last.

  ARMY VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the decision arrived at with reference to the abolition of the prefix to the titles of the officers of the Army Veterinary Department.
  MR. BRODRICK: As the hon. Member has been informed on a previous occasion, it has been decided to await the conclusion of the war before making any changes that may be deemed necessary for this Department.

  EASTER TRAININGS FOR VOLUNTEERS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the order issued last week that no camp
  300
  allowances will be granted as heretofore for the Easter training of Volunteers, he will cause to be notified without delay the regulations it is proposed to substitute, in order that regiments and individuals may make arrangements without delay for conforming thereto as far as practicable.
  MR. BRODRICK: The military authorities do not consider that the advantage gained by the short Easter training of Volunteers is sufficient to justify the issue of camp allowances. The general scheme of camp arrangements for the year is being carefully considered, and every effort will be made to issue regulations as early as possible.

  DUBLIN ROYAL BARRACKS CONTRACT—REDDY'S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the report of an action taken against a War Department contractor named Broderick, before the Recorder of Dublin, by a labourer named Reddy for damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries received while employed in the execution of contract work at the Royal Barracks; whether he is aware that Roddy swore at the trial that he was a labourer employed by Broderick to do plastering work at 18s. per week, while Broderick swore that his contract was for painting only; whether the employment of labourers at 18s. per week either on plastering or painting contracts for the War Department is in accordance with the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution of February, 1891; and whether he is aware that repeated complaints against this con tractor have been made to the War Office within the past six months by the Amal gamated Painters' Society at Dublin with unsatisfactory results; and whether, in view of the fact that Broderick has secured the painting contracts for other military barracks in Ireland, the Department will undertake that these contracts shall be cancelled in the event of Broderick continuing to evade the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution.
  LORD STANLEY: The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The General Officer Commanding has been

  301
  directed to make inquiries into the matter. War Department contracts require payment by the contractor of the wages current in the district. The position taken by this contractor in answer to the complaints referred to by the hon. Member has been that he has paid the full union rate of 8d. an hour to his painters, and a less rate to improvers, boys and lime-whiters. As regards the work which he is carrying out at other stations in Ireland, it has been ascertained by the General Officer Commanding that he is paying the men employed the usual rates current in the district.
  MR. NANNETTIasked a further question as to the number of improvers employed by this contractor.
  LORD STANLEY: I must ask for notice.

  BELLEVILLE BOILERS.
  MR. CHARLES WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have recently given orders that four of His Majesty's vessels—viz., the "Encounter," the "Cornwall," the "Queen," and the "Prince of Wales," should be fitted with the Belleville water-tube boilers; and, if so, why this has been done pending the Report of the Committee of experts now inquiring into the matter, and when it is expected that such Report will be made.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Admiralty policy in the matter of boilers was described in the Memorandum on Water - tube Boilers which was presented to Parliament, and in accordance with that policy the four ships named in the question were ordered to be fitted with the Belleville boiler; but in the event of the Report of the Committee indicating the necessity of a change in the type of boiler this decision will be reviewed in all cases where it may be found practicable. The "Challenger," the sister ship to the "Encounter," is being fitted with Babeock and Wilcox boilers for comparison with the Belleville boilers in the latter ship. Babeock and Wilcox boilers are also being fitted in the "Espiegle" and "Odin," and Niclausse boilers in the "Suffolk," sister ship to the "Cornwall," and in the "Merlin," for comparison with other ships of the same classes fitted with the Belleville
  302
  boiler. The Committee have been requested to make an interim Report on any of the points referred to them, as soon as they have collected sufficient evidence or experimental proof to enable them to form a reliable opinion.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: May I ask whether the Admiralty will request the Committee to. make a trial of one of His Majesty's ships fitted with water-tube boilers for a whole ocean voyage—say, across the Atlantic —before they make their Report.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot say what instructions have been given to the Committee on that point. I have no doubt whatever that a trial of ships under these conditions will be made, but I cannot give particulars as to the extent, or duration of the voyage.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: But cannot the Admiralty request that an ocean voyage be made at full speed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I will put a question on the subject on Thursday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the order was given to fit these ships with Belleville boilers—by the late or present Board of Admiralty?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The orders; were given in the ordinary routine when the orders for the ships were given.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Were some of them given by the late and some by the present Board?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Were any of the orders placed in Belfast, and if not, why not?
  [No answer was returned.]

  INDIAN FAMINE RELIEF.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can give the total number of persons in receipt of famine relief in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The number of persons in receipt of famine relief in India last week was 214,000, of whom 179,000 were in British districts and 35,000 in Native States.

  EFFECTIVE STRENGTH OF MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what was the effective strength of noncommissioned officers and men of the British forces in India on 1st January, 1896; 1st January, 1897: 1st January, 1898; 1st January, 1899; 1st January, 1900; and 1st January, 1901.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The effective strength of non-commisioned officers and men of the British forces in India on the 1st January in each year from 1896 to 1901 was as follows:—1st January, 1896, 70,615; 1897, 70,400; 1898, 67,808; 1899, 68,578: 1900, 64,213; 1901, 58,702.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: How many of the men now serving in India are serving beyond their terms of engagement?
  LORD G. HAMILTONwas understood to reply: A very considerable number—probably about 12,000.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what was the strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the forces on the Indian establishment in India, British and native respectively, on 1st January, 1901.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the forces on the Indian establishment in India on 1st January, 1901, was: British, 58,702; native, 127,666.

  TROOPS EMPLOYED BEYOND THE FRONTIERS.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what number of British and native troops of the Indian Army are now being employed beyond the frontiers of India; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving full particulars of such employment.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There are of the Indian establishment about 5,200
  304
  British troops in South Africa; about 300 British and about 16,300 native troops in China (including Hong Kong): about 1,500 native troops in the Mauritius; about 800 native troops in Singapore; about 2,100 British troops and about 800 natives in Ceylon; and about 600 native troops in Jubaland; making a total of 7,600 British troops and 20,000 native troops. I have no objection to a Return, but I do not think that it would add anything material to the information which I have given.

  IMPERIAL GRANT IN AID OF INDIA OFFICE CHARGES.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has yet considered the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, as contained in Clause 364 of the Report, that a grant of £50,000 should be made by the Imperial Government in aid of the charge for the India Office; and, if so, how he proposes to deal with it.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The correspondence on the subject of the measures to be taken for the relief of Indian revenues, in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, has been laid before Parliament. It shows that the matter has been fully considered, and that His Majesty's Government have accepted in their entirety the recommendations of the Commission so far as the amount of relief to be received by India is concerned. As regards the heads under which that relief is given, they have in the main accepted the recommendations of the Commissioners, but on some points they have made other arrangements which appeared to be more convenient for administrative-purposes. They do not propose to increase the total amount of relief which has been already agreed to, and which, as I have said, is the amount recommended by the Commission.
  MR. CAINE: Did not the Commission recommend a grant in all of £293,000, and have you not allotted less?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am afraid they made an arithmetical mistake by substituting tens of rupees for pounds sterling. We have given actually about, £4,000 more than they recommended.
  MR. CAINE: But this particular £50,000 has not been dealt with.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, Sir.
  MR. CAINE: And is the reason for not dealing with it the desire that it shall not appear on the yearly Estimates?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: That is rather a matter of argument. The Commission suggested as an alternative that it should be put on the Consolidated Fund, in which case a discussion on it would be impossible.

  PATAGONIA.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the report of the Rev. D. Richards, chaplain of H.M.S. "Flora," on the condition of Welshmen in Patagonia has been received; whether it confirms the complaint of Mr. John Morley that his flocks and herds are being decimated by a gang of cattle thieves, who are in league with the police authorities and are favoured by Pedro P. Martinez, the chief of police; and whether Mr. Richards' report will be made public.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The report of the chaplain of His Majesty's ship "Flora" has not been received in the Department. A report from the commander of that vessel on his visit to Chubut in June last was communicated by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and has already been laid before Parliament (by the Secretary of State for the Colonies), but no mention is made therein of Mr. Morley's case. A complaint from Mr. Morley himself has however been received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres, who has already made representations to the Argentine Government on the subject. These representations have, it appears, been well received. The exact result is not yet known, but Mr. Morley has acknowledged the steps taken on his behalf as valuable and efficacious.

  BRITISH CONSULAR REPRESENTATION IN RUSSIA.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His
  306
  Majesty's Government has taken any steps, in view of the appointment of a Russian consul general to Bombay, to secure British consular representation at any point in the Russian Empire east of Batoum.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The Russian Government agreed in 1892 to the extension of the authority of the British Consul at Batoum to the Governments of Baku, Elizabetpol, Erivan, Tiflis, Kutais, and Tchernomoria, and it is understood that no objection would be raised by them to the appointment of a consular officer to reside at Tiflis should His Majesty's Government at any time find it desirable to make such an appointment. A British vice-consul has been appointed at Baku.
  MR. BRYCE: Is it intended to appoint a consular officer for Tiflis?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEasked for notice.

  LEAD POISONING IN THE POTTERIES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the official figures of cases of lead poisoning in the Potteries for 1900 show but slight diminution from those of 1899, and that in the months of April, July, August, October, and December the figures exceed those for the corresponding months of the previous year; and whether, in view of the failure of the Special Rules of 1898 to put a stop to lead poisoning, he is prepared to issue as special rules the whole of the recommendations which were contained in a Homo Office circular to manufacturers dated 14th December 1899, and again submitted to them as proposed special rules in August 1900.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am aware that in the months of July, August, October, and December, 1900 (but not in April or in any other month), the reported cases of plumbism in the industry of china and earthenware making were more numerous than in the corresponding months of 1899, the totals being 71 and 50 respectively. But the net result for the year as a whole was a reduction from 249 in 1899 to 200 in 1900, and this has fol-

  307
  lowed upon a previous large reduction between 1898 and 1899. In answer to the second paragraph of the question I think the right hon. Baronet and the House may like to hear in some detail what is the present position of the matter. I have a few days ago formally proposed a set of new rules to the manufacturers following in the main the draft issued in August last but containing certain amendments which appeared to me necessary and reasonable. I might have proposed the rules in this form some time ago, but I have been in negotiation with the representatives of the manufacturers in hope of arriving at a settlement and avoiding arbitration, and I have found them ready to accept with a few slight modifications most of my proposals. On the proposed '"standard of insolubility," however, a serious difference of opinion arose between the Government chemist and the manufacturers' expert advisers, and I have come to the conclusion that this difference I should be settled by arbitration. There are also points on which I am anxious that the workpeople should have an opportunity of stating their views before they are finally settled, and these will be dealt with on the arbitration, at which the workpeople are entitled to be represented.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Arising out of the answer I should like to ask two questions—namely, whether the figures just given tally with those printed from month to month in the Labour Gazette; also whether the arbitration is to be on the rules as they were formerly or on the rules modified.
  MR. RITCHIE: The rules have been referred to the arbitrator as they originally were, because this would give the workmen an opportunity of expressing their views before the arbitrator goes into the modification which the Home Office might think fit to suggest. I am not aware what the figures in the Labour Gazette are, but I will inquire and let the right hon. baronet know if there is any difference, and, if so, why.
  MR. COGHILL: Has there not been a diminution in the number of cases of lead poisoning reported, and have not those reported been less serious than formerly?
  MR. RITCHIE: I believe that, generally, there has been a yearly reduc-
  308
  tion, but I cannot say to what extent without notice.
  In answer to a query by another hon. Member, Mr. RITCHIE said that if only the modified rules had been referred to the arbitration it would have been impossible to hear the workmen on other points, and he therefore thought it better to lot the whole thing go before the arbitrator and give the men an opportunity of expressing their views on any amendments which might be suggested by the manufacturers.

  CARMARTHEN PRISON.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any changes are contemplated in the arrangement of His Majesty's Prison, Carmarthen; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of the proposed changes and the reasons for them.
  MR. RITCHIE: The answer is in the negative.

  STATE INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received various representations from county authorities urging the establishment of a State inebriate reformatory; and whether he is now prepared to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir; I have received numerous representations such as my hon. friend suggests, and I am myself anxious that a State inebriate reformatory should be established. I am now in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) ACT, 1900—RULES.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what action, if any, he has taken to give effect to the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, by making rules or orders to enforce compliance with the twelve clauses contained in the Schedule of the Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Steps are being taken

  309
  to prepare and make rules under Section 1, Sub-section 1 of the Act referred to, and, in the meantime, I understand that the leading railway companies are themselves taking steps to minimise the effect of the dangerous operations described in the Schedule.

  AUTOMATIC COUPLINGS ON RAILWAYS.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to take any steps for the substitution of automatic or other couplings in the place of the present method of coupling goods and mineral vehicles on railways under the power conferred upon the Board of Trade in the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to make any statement on this question at present. It has not been lost sight of.

  CHELSEA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Chelsea Electricity Supply Company are trying to force users of electricity at 100 volts to take 200 volts current by giving a preferential rate to users of 200 volts; and whether the giving of preferential rates by the company is within their power without the authority of the Board.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the Chelsea Electricity Supply Company, Limited, desire to change their standard pressure from 100 volts to 200 volts, and that, in order to induce consumers to take the higher pressure, they have given notice that after the 1st of July next consumers taking a supply at the lower pressure will be charged a rate higher than that to be charged for supply at the higher pressure. The higher rate is within the maximum price fixed by the Provisional Order, but whether the company are entitled to charge different rates to consumers supplied at different pressures is a legal question on which I am not prepared to express an opinion. I have no power to give or refuse sanction to the proposed charge.

  SINKING OF A DREDGER IN CORK HARBOUR.
  CAPTAIN DOTNTELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a dredger bound to Japan from an English port capsized at the entrance to Cork Harbour in December last with the loss of all hands; and whether this craft was inspected and pronounced seaworthy; and, if so, by whom was this duty performed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I am aware that the dredger referred to in the question was lost in heavy weather in December last, and I regret to say that twelve out of a crew of seventeen were lost. Before the vessel left port she was inspected by two Board of Trade surveyors, who saw no reason to object in any way to her construction or equipment. I am informed that she was also surveyed by one of the chief surveyors to Bureau Veritas, who reported her to be in a "completely seaworthy condition."
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Has a craft of this description ever before attempted to undertake such a long voyage?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to say.

  PREFERENTIAL RAILWAY RATES FOR FOREIGN FRUIT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway rate for foreign fruit from Dover to London is 1s. 8d. per ton, whilst English fruit from Dover to London cost 12s 3d. per ton, and that the Railway and Shipping Conference average through rates to Ireland upon the same system; whether the Board of Trade consider such an arrangement to constitute a preferential rate in favour of the foreign importer; and whether an inquiry will be made respecting the schedule of through rates, and a comparison instituted as to the mileage rate charged for the carriage of native produce throughout the United Kingdom.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I have no information which would justify me in accepting as correct the figures set out in the question of the hon. Member. The Board of Trade are always prepared to investigate any specific complaint under

  311
  Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.
  MR. FIELD: But will not the right hon. Gentleman seek information as to the specific complaint contained in my question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have asked the hon. Member to name specific cases. My present information is that his figures are not correct.
  MR. FIELD: Will you answer the last paragraph of my question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no intention of making such an inquiry.

  TRANSPORT OF LIVE STOCK FROM IRELAND TO GREAT BRITAIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the consignors of live stock from Ireland to Great Britain are compelled by the carrying companies to sign through consignment notes, which relieve the companies from the conditions of the Carriers Act; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter, with a view to safeguard the humane transit and speedy delivery of live stock from Ireland to Great Britain.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I am not aware that carrying companies in Ireland compel, or have any power to compel, consignors of live or any other stock to sign through consignment notes relieving the companies of liability; and I do not think any inquiry into the question of consignment notes necessary.
  MR. FIELD: If evidence is produced to prove the facts stated in the question, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps in regard to the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Any evidence produced to show the necessity for further steps will be duly considered.

  ARSENICAL BEER POISONING.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether two more deaths from arsenical beer poisoning occurred in Crumpsall workhouse hospital quite recently.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Two deaths from
  312
  arsenical poisoning occurred in the Crumpsall workhouse infirmary last week, and inquests were held on them on Friday. The cases were admitted to the infirmary on the 4th of December and the 18th of January respectively, but the medical officer of the infirmary reports that in each case the illness had been of several months duration.
  MR. FLYNN: Have any cases of poisoning been traced to the consumption of Irish beer?
  [No answer was returned.]

  QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL-FACILITIES FOR THE FOREIGN PRESS.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the facilities which were granted by the Admiralty to the fully accredited representatives of the foreign press to view the funeral obsequies of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria were refused by the military authorities on the passage of the cortege through London and at the service in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.
  LORD STANLEY: All representatives of the press who applied were informed by the General Officer Commanding the Home District that as the issue of passes was in the hands of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, the applications should be addressed to them. No written application was received from any foreign press representatives. In regard to the service in St. George's Chapel the issue of permits was solely in the hands of the Court officials, to whom all applicants would be referred.

  CROFTERS IN THE ISLAND OF BARRA.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet been able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with Lady Gordon Cathcart to provide land for the crofters and cottars in the island of Barra; and whether the report by Mr. M'Intyre, of the Crofters' Commission on the subject will be published.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): No arrangement has been concluded, but negotiations for the purchase of a portion of the island of Barra are in progress. If they are suc-

  313
  cessful an announcement will be made so far as circumstances admit. It is not proposed to publish the report referred to.

  SCOTTISH PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the case of Provisional Orders applied for under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which, in consequence of the decision of the Chairmen, will now be proceeded with as private Bills, it will be competent for county councils to petition in the usual way under the General Standing Orders applicable to private Bills before Parliament, as these county councils will not now have the opportunity of making a report, under Section 11 (3), which was the alternative method of procedure provided under the Act of 1899.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I understand it will be competent to petition against those Bills in the usual way in terms of Standing Order 210.

  MOVILLE PETTY SESSIONS BENCH.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the population of the Moville Petty Sessions, county Donegal, is three-fourths Roman Catholic, and if he will state the number of Roman Catholic magistrates in the petty sessions district and the number of non-Roman Catholic magistrates in said district, and if the Government will take steps to have the number of Roman Catholic magistrates increased in proportion to the number of Roman Catholics in said district.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE LAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I have no means of verifying the statement in the first part of the question, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Of the fourteen magistrates who attended the petty sessions one or more times during the past year, ten appear to be Protestants and four Roman Catholics. Applications and recommendations for the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lieutenant of county, who transmits them, if he thinks them suitable, for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

  RATING OF RAILWAYS AND LANDS IN IRELAND.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that complaints have been made by various local authorities in Ireland regarding the law by which rates leviable off railways and other lands are on only one-fourth of their net annual value; and whether he will consider the expediency of amending the law so as to make the liability of such property to rates similar to that of all real property in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Both in England and Ireland rates in urban districts on railways and certain lands are assessed on a proportion of their net annual value, save where exceptions are made by local Acts. In England this proportion is one-third, and in Ireland one-fourth. Complaints have been made in the matter by local authorities in Ireland, but the question is obviously of far-reaching importance, and there is much to be said on both sides. Any proposal to amend the law would, meet with strong opposition, and I cannot undertake to introduce legislation as suggested.

  SUPPRESSED LEAGUE MEETING AT FOXFORD.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many police were brought into Foxford on the 1st January, 1901, and what was the total cost of police operations in connection with the suppression of the meeting announced to be held in Foxford on that day.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police force brought into Foxford on the occasion mentioned consisted: of seven officers and 204 men. The expenses of this concentration amounted to £159, of which a sum of £5 will be charged to the local rates.

  CASE OF LEWIS LOWRISON.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- land whether a petition has been received in favour of the reduction of the sentence of six months' imprison- merit, passed by the petty sessions on

  315
  Lewis Lowrison; whether he is aware that county court Judge Curran described this sentence as a savage sentence, and expressed his willingness to reduce it if, on appeal, a reduction were asked for; and whether, considering the offence, if technically an offence at all, was a trivial one, accused will now be liberated.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to say whether this county court judge used the language attributed to him, but in any case, he confirmed the sentence on appeal. A memorial on behalf of the prisoner was received on Thursday last and is now under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant, whose decision will be communicated in due course.

  NEWMARKET (CORK) PETTY SESSIONS COUET.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to proceedings before the petty session court at New market (county Cork) on 12th October last; will he state on what grounds was a large number of police drafted into the town for the occasion; and from what source will the costs of this extra force be defrayed; and whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the locality, the constabulary authorities authorised the introduction of a large force of armed police.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The authorities responsible for the peace of the district assembled a force of police for the preservation of order on the occasion. The police present were supplied from within the county, and consequently there will be no charge to local rates for their services.

  CORK POLICE AT THE CITY ELECTION.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary applied for and received from the Cork Borough Council a sum of £137 for extra constabulary employed during the recent city election; will he explain why, although this election was carried out in the most peaceable and orderly manner, the extra police were drafted into the city; also, why the Cork Corporation were not consulted with regard to bringing them in.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The amount claimed from and paid by the Cork Borough Council in respect of the extra constabulary employed on the occasion referred to was £68 18s. 6d. The election involved considerable local excitement, and it became necessary to augment the ordinary force of the city, which is not adequate to discharge abnormal duties on occasions of this kind. It has not been the practice to consult the Corporation in such matters. I may remind the hon. Member that the ordinary police work of Cork is performed entirely free to local rates.
  MR. FLYNN: Who fixes the rates? Have the local authorities no right of appeal?
  MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to reply that the Constabulary authorities usually increased the force in times of excitement without consulting the local authorities, as they were responsible for the maintenance of order.
  MR. O'DOHERTYinquired how it happened to be the fact that Londonderry and Belfast alone, of all the other Irish cities, had to contribute towards maintenance of the ordinary police force, but the Speaker ruled it out of order.

  THE RECENT "DAY OF GENERAL, MOURNING"—POLICE AND SHOPKEEPERS IN COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the traders of Carnew, county Wicklow, were compelled by an order of the police to keep their shops closed on Saturday, 2nd February; and, if so, upon whose authority did the police issue the order; and whether he is aware that the shopkeepers of adjoining towns, such as Shillelagh and Newtownbarry, were permitted to carry on their business on the day named without any interference on the part of the local police.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police at Car-new, as well as in the other towns mentioned, merely directed public attention to the Proclamation, and in no way interfered with the closing or opening of shops. At Carnew the traders closed, whereas in the other two places the shops remained open.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Ireland directions by the police have to be looked upon as commands? Will he direct them to mind their own business in the future?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE PORT OF DUBLIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment of a Viceregal Commission to consider the conditions and circumstances connected with the port of Dublin and to report thereon, with a view to legislation next session.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Port and Docks Board is, I believe, controlled by an Act passed so recently as in 1898. The expediency of appointing a Viceregal Commission at this stage in the Board's existence seems questionable. I will, however, look farther into the matter.

  LONGFORD UNION NIGHT NURSE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the grounds upon which the Local Government Board have declined to sanction the appointment of a night nurse in Longford Union, although she had been pronounced fully qualified by training in the Union Infirmary under the personal supervision of the late Dr. Cochrane, F.R.C.S.I.; whether the Board did on a previous occasion agree to her appointment to same office, but Dr. Cochrane would not then agree; and whether the matter will now be dealt with and closed by her appointment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board declined to sanction the appointment of Miss Brown as night nurse in the workhouse infirmary on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualifications for the office. The late Dr. Cochrane reported favourably on her in the capacity of wardsmaid, but she has not undergone a proper course of training in a fully equipped hospital. There is no foundation for the statement in the second paragraph. The Board feel that for night-work the services of a fully qualified nurse are indispensable.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE BOYLE UNION.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Local Government Board propose to issue to the credit of the Boyle Board of Guardians the sum of £252 13s. 3d., standing to their credit under the grant of £40,000 voted by Parliament in 1890, seeing that the Union are now building 37 cottages under the Labourers Acts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Steps are now being taken with a view to the distribution of the unexpended balance of the grant in question, and the Boyle Guardians will receive the share to which they may be entitled under the regulations. I do not anticipate any great delay.

  GRANTS-IN-AID IN IRELAND.
  Mr. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board and other responsible authorities will take steps to inform district councils and boards of guardians as to the various grants which they forward to county councils, and are placed to the credit of these district councils and unions; and whether, in future, notification will be sent to the district councils and unions when grants are forwarded to county councils.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board will be happy to supply this information each year to any district council or board of guardians who may apply to them for it, but as these bodies have direct financial relations with the county councils they can obtain the information from the secretaries of these councils, and many of them, no doubt, would prefer to do so.

  COMMISSION ON IRISH LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of the Commission on Irish Local Taxation has been printed; and whether he can state when it will be published.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member presumably refers to the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation generally. My right hon. friend the

  319
  Secretary of State for the Home Department stated last Friday that it was impossible to fix a date for the publication of the Report, which is now under consideration.

  ST. MEL CATHEDRAL
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will furnish a copy of the correspondence between the Board of Works and the Church representative body on the subject of the preservation of the ruins of the ancient Cathedral Church of St. Mel, at Ardagh, county Longford.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no correspondence on this matter.

  SUNDAY POSTAL DELIVERY AT COOLARTY.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any complaints have reached his Department as to the failure to supply a Sunday delivery of letters from Edge worthstown to Coolarty viâ Lisryan; and whether such service will now be given; and also whether a collection box will be erected at Spring park for the purpose of facilitating the families resident in the vicinity to avail themselves of the services of the rural carrier.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No complaint appears to have been received respecting the failure of the Post Office to provide a delivery of letters on Sundays at Coolarty, but inquiry shall be made whether it is practicable to afford the desired delivery, and also a wall letter box at Springpark, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

  MOHILL AND FARNAUGHT POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the attention of the Post Office authorities has been directed to the inconvenience caused to the residents in the district between Mohill and Farnaught, in South Leitrim, owing to the postman who makes the house to house delivery not remaining in Farnaught sufficiently long each evening
  320
  to enable residents to despatch replies on the same day to letters which they receive; and will he state what steps will be taken to remedy this inconvenience.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received no representation that inconvenience is caused to residents at Mohill and Farnaught under the present postal arrangements; but inquiry shall be made with the view to ascertain if an improvement is warranted.

  THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDhad on the Paper the following question: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to eliminate from His Majesty's Coronation Oath that portion which describes the religion of His Majesty's Catholic subjects as idolatrous and superstitious. In putting the question the hon. Member said the Oath referred to was not the Coronation Oath, but the Oath taken by His Majesty in opening Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is not an oath, but a statement, and the statement was made on the opening of Parliament, and will, of course, not have to be repeated at the coronation.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement to which he refers was not, as a matter of fact, in the nature of an oath?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought it was more properly described as a statement —a statutory declaration.*
  * By the Statute I William & Mary, Session 2, cap. 2 ("For declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and settling the Succession of the Crown") it was in section 10 enacted that the Monarch should "on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne…make subscribe and audibly repeat the: Declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of Charles II., intituled 'An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.'" The last mentioned Act clearly distinguishes "Oath" and "Declaration." By Section 2, Peers and Members of the House of Commons are to "take the several Oaths of Allegiance and
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not true that in making this statement His Majesty kissed the Bible and actually took an oath; and, further, I would ask him whether any steps are to be taken to secure that in future this Oath shall not be taken by His Majesty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am no particular admirer of the form of words used in the Declaration. But the hon. Gentleman will see that the practical question is passed, and it will not arise again, we hope, for many long years to come.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The question is not whether it is a practical question. Is it not true that millions of His Majesty's subjects in every part of the Empire regard this Oath as wantonly insulting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that is not the case.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg respectfully to point out that as long as this Oath is in existence and His Majesty swears that Catholics are idolatrous, I for one will oppose His Majesty's salary.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it proposed to continue to pay out of public
  Supremacy," "and make subscribe and audibly repeat this Declaration following: ' I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous, and I do solemnly in the presence of God profess testify and declare that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null or void from the beginning.'"—ED.]
  322
  funds the ministers of the Catholic Church to act as chaplains—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing to do with the question.
  MR. FLAVIN: Does the Declaration mean that the Catholics of the United Kingdom—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely irregular. He is asking what a Declaration means. That is a question of law or opinion.
  MR. FLAVIN: I was asking a question arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have endeavoured to explain to the hon. Gentleman that it is out of order.
  MR. FLAVIN: As a matter of fact, I did not ask any question at all.

  CHINA AND THE ALLIED POWERS— SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ministers of the Allied Powers in Peking are pressing that four high officials of the Chinese Government should be ordered to commit suicide.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No. The action of the Powers is confined to urging upon the Chinese Government the imposition of the death penalty in the case of certain officials chiefly responsible for the recent outrages.
  MR. DILLON: Have the Ministers intimated to the Chinese Government that they will accept suicide as a substitute for the death penalty?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. DILLON: Will the noble Lord not deign to give me an answer?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. friend the Leader of the House has already stated that there is an understanding that the Under Secretary shall not answer supplementary questions.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege. I wish to ask whether it is not a breach of the privileges of this House for the Leader of the House to forbid a Minister

  323
  to reply to the question of an hon. Member?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is a matter for the Minister who is asked the question to answer it or decline to answer it on public grounds, as he thinks fit. What those public grounds are, whether they are sufficient or not, must be a question for him and the other members of the Ministry.
  MR. DILLON: That, Sir, is not the question I desire to put to you, but whether it is not a matter for the discretion of the Minister himself—whether it is in accordance with the practices and privileges of this House for any one Minister to forbid another Minister to answer the question of an hon. Member of the House instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Minister himself.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for me to decide. I cannot say that it is a breach of the privileges of the House. If the House chooses to pass a resolution condemning such a practice, that is a matter for the House. If the head of a Department or the Leader of the House says that it is not in the public interest that such a course should be taken it is not a matter that the Speaker can deal with. It is a matter for the House.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask whether I shall be at liberty to raise a question of privilege now or immediately after questions?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of privilege.
  MR. COGHILL: May I ask whether it has not been the custom in this House for a Minister to answer a question fully when it has been properly brought before him?
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not, if the Minister says he declines on grounds which are always assumed to be, unless the contrary is stated, the grounds of public convenience.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask whether we are to understand from your ruling just given that in each case of a question put to a Minister, the Minister, if he declines to answer, is bound to state that he declines to answer that specific question on grounds of public policy?
  MR. SPEAKER: I certainly should not feel myself bound to call on him to state that in answer to each particular question, if a general statement had been already made.
  MR. DILLON: Arising out of your last answer, Mr. Speaker, what I complained of was that the Minister on this occasion did not refuse to answer me on any public grounds. He refused to answer me on the specific ground that the First Lord of the Treasuary had laid it down as a principle that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not to reply to supplementary questions. I desire, with your permission, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether that dictum would apply to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if we were blessed with such an institution as that in this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This matter cannot be carried on by debate in form of question and answer across the floor of the House. If the hon. Member has reason to complain of the action of the Government he must take the usual course.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask if this trouble has not arisen because the Government is too largely dominated by one family?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would ask you whether until very recently—until, I think, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary for War—when an intimation was made that a change should be made in the practice of this House, it has not always been understood that when a great Department of the State like the Department for Foreign Affairs is not represented in this House by the principal and head of that Department, but by a subordinate member of that Department, that subordinate member, who is the only representative in this House of that Department, is bound to act in the same mannner and answer questions in the same manner as if he were the principal and head of that Department, and that that is the only security for this House having that information to which it would be entitled if the head of that Department were here.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must respectfully decline to be drawn into an argument upon a matter between the House and the Government. I think I should be doing wrong if I were to express opinions about the conduct of the Government except in matters which strictly arise out of questions of order and privilege.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS—(SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS.)

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT
  Mr. DILLON, Member for East Mayo, rose in his place and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the refusal of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to answer a question put by an honourable Member of this House, and his statement that he based that refusal on the general prohibition of the Leader of the House"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen—
  MR. DILLON: It will take very few words for me to explain the grounds on which I venture to submit this motion to the House. For the last two or three years there has been evidence of a growing desire on the part of Ministers to treat this House with scant courtesy, especially in regard to information on foreign affairs. The first ground on which I submit this motion is one which, I think, will commend itself to all Members, irrespective of party affiliations—namely, that the Members of the House of Commons, who have to vote the supplies without which the foreign affairs of the country could not be carried on for an hour, are entitled at least to the same amount of information and the same courtesy as are accorded to Members of the House of Lords. I affirm without fear of contradiction that for three years, by a departure from the unbroken tradition and constitutional practice of this country, Members of this House who desired information as to the foreign policy of the Government have been obliged to wait until the next day, when
  326
  they were able to read the statement of that policy given in the House of Lords. And yet we are the House, after all, on whom the existence of the Government and the conduct of their foreign policy depend. A new departure was taken at the beginning of the year before last—a departure without precedent in the history of any legislative assembly in the world—when one night, to the astonishment of everyone, and I venture to affirm, though I have not inquired in regard to it, without intimation to the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House—who, if he acted in accordance with the best traditions of the House, ought to be guardian of the liberties and privileges of every Member—announced, in his insinuating and agreeable voice, as if he was saying something that would be welcomed by everybody, that, in consequence of embarrassing questions, he had given directions that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should not be at liberty for the future to answer any supplementary questions.* I supposed the meaning of that was that such supplementary questions should be referred to his superior in the House of Lords. There is a great constitutional question involved in this matter. If the House of Commons assents to this new gag it will inevitably take a back seat in influencing the foreign policy of the country. No Ministry which requires to be relieved from the unpleasant criticism of the House of Commons will ever put a Foreign Minister in this House when it can muzzle hon. Members here by putting him in the House of Lords it is the right of the House of Commons to obtain from the representative of the Foreign Office in this House the same amount of information as if he were at the head of that Office. What is the position taken up by the Leader of the House and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? It has been the recognised custom from time immemorial that a Minister is always at liberty to exercise his discretion with regard to supplementary questions, and, while maintaining a civil and decent demeanour, even with regard to ques-
  * Refer to The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth iSeries], Vol. lxvi., page 114.

  327
  tions on the Paper. But he must exercise that discretion on the merits of the individual question. Any Minister is at liberty to say "The state of public affairs is such that I do not consider it advisable to answer the question at the present moment," and there is hardly a night during the session that that position is not taken up with regard to some Parliamentary matter. When, however, the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the merits of the question, assumes a right—to which he has no more claim than a private Member of the House—to tell one of his Ministers, who is not his subordinate, but who is responsible directly to the House and not through the right hon. Gentleman, that he shall not answer any supplementary questions, I say we are face to face with a most revolutionary departure from all previous precedents, and one which may cause the utter destruction of the privilege of questioning in this House. Another ground upon which I attach the utmost importance to this new practice is that you must scrutinise every departure from old practice not on the merits of the departure itself, but on the question of bow far the principle may be drawn. What may be the result if we yield to this new claim? This year the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is forbidden to answer supplementary questions. Next year he may be forbidden to answer any questions whatever. What is the difference in essence? If the Leader of the House has this right with regard to supplementary questions, how can we deny his right to say to the Under Sec-rotary of State, "I think it desirable that you shall not answer any questions at all Members of the House of Commons can wait until next day and read Lord Salisbury's speech and get the information there." And if the rule apply to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, why not to the Irish. Secretary? What is the difference? Some people think we Irish belong to the domain of foreign affairs. We are accustomed to be called "rebels" and "traitors." I see no logical argument by which we could resist the claim of the Leader of the House, if this departure were acquiesced in without protest, to forbid the Irish Secretary to answer
  328
  any questions whatever. All he would have to say would be that the interests of public order and good government in Ireland would be best served by stopping the heckling and annoyance to which the Irish Secretary was subjected. In this claim is involved the right to take away one of the most valuable privileges which distinguish the House of Commons from any other assembly. Questions are one of the main means by which we can call the Executive Government of the country to account. If the First Lord of the Treasury is entitled by his simple ipse dixit to muzzle the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, he is entitled on the same ground to muzzle every Minister on the Treasury Bench and to sweep away the privilege of asking questions altogether. Great constitutional questions are involved, and the House of Commons will be very badly advised if they consent without a strong protest to this great invasion of their rights. I have ventured to move this motion because I think a precedent like this ought not to be allowed to pass sub silentio, and that such a serious step in the degradation of the House of Commons ought at the earliest opportunity to be brought to notice. I beg to move.
  MR. BLAKE: I rise to second the motion. The general custom of questions is one of the highest importance and value, and one of the principal privileges in the custom is that of put ting supplementary questions. A single question put on the Paper may receive an inadequate, ambiguous, or evasive answer, or one provocative of further inquiry, and if you have not the power of questioning a Minister with reference to that which he has answered there is at once created for him the opportunity and the temptation to be more evasive or reticent, and to evade and avoid the subject of inquiry even more than is at present the case. Suppose this rule applied to all subjects, and that to every supplementary question we were told, "No, no further Questions to-day; put it on the Paper." You put it on the Paper; again there is evasion or the suggestion of something lacking, and again you are told to put any additional question on the Paper. The power of

  329
  questions would be no longer anything substantial, but a mockery. Yet that which would be intolerable as a general proposition is said to be not merely tolerable but proper with reference to a most important branch of the questioning power—that relating to foreign affairs. I readily admit that with reference to foreign affairs there will arise more frequently than with regard to almost any other domain of questions the necessity for the power of saying "public interest demands that I should abstain from replying." Nobody proposes to interfere with that discretion; but why in the world should not the Minister in this domain, just as much as in any other, with reference to supplementary questions be allowed to answer if he thinks fit? If the subject be delicate and important, and he is not seised in advance of the material for a proper reply, why should he not say, as many a Minister has to say, "I am not in a position to answer now, therefore put it down"? But to lay down a general rule that, whatever answer the Minister may give, no matter how evasive, unsatisfactory, or provocative of further inquiry, this House should be muzzled, and should not be entitled to say one word upon it, is to render a sham and a delusion the power of questioning with reference to the very subject in which the highest interests are involved, and in regard to which it is of the greatest consequence that the House of Commons should retain or resume its just power.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was a good deal that surprised me in the course of the speeches to which we have just-listened, as well as in the course of that somewhat irregular fire of questions which preceded them. In the first place, let me point out that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo is now raising as a question of urgent public importance a matter which has been the practice for now more than two years. This is a new Parliament, and I presume there are a good many Gentlemen present who have not been long in the House, and I am sure that, listening to what has
  330
  occurred to-day, they would suppose that I had given an absolute direction to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but that is a most inaccurate view of the history of this question. I believe this rule was laid down for the first time some two years or two years and a half ago, not on the irresponsible will of any one Minister, but after careful consideration and discussion by the Government as a whole. Therefore, so far from this being a new practice the House has been accustomed to it for at least two years or two years and a half.
  MR. BARTLEY: But we never accepted it, and we always resented it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not looking into the heart of my hon. friend. He may always have resented it, but I do not recollect any speech of his on the subject. But it has been the practice for two years, and therefore for a Member of the House to say that it is an innovation—a recent innovation—is, I think, altogether to violate the true accuracy of historical statement. But that is an unimportant point. The really important point is not whether the precedent is new or immemorial in its character, but whether in itself it tends to the dignity of the House and the safety of the country; and after careful reflection we have come to the conclusion that the practice of cross-examining the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and expecting him to answer questions on the spur of the moment in this House is an inexpedient practice, because we see that it is impossible, if such a practice is to prevail, to carry on the difficult and delicate negotiations in which an Empire of this magnitude is constantly involved. The hon. Gentleman has made two statements which I venture to say are wholly unsupported by the facts. He talks as if this practice of cross-examining Ministers was the old practice of the House. It is nothing of the kind. It is a new practice. In the course of my own Parliamentary recollections—[An HON. MEMBER: The Fourth Party initiated it.] Even in the course of my Parliamentary recollections it has steadily grown. I do not know whether it is or is not an advantage to the House. That

  331
  is not the point I am discussing. What I am venturing to point out to the House is that the practice is a comparatively new one in Parliamentary history.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Does he not himself recollect that any Member on asking a question and not getting a satisfactory answer could make a speech, and if complaint was made he always said, "I will conclude with a motion"?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How does that traverse the statement I made that this practice of putting a series of supplementary questions to three-fourths of the questions put upon the Paper is a new practice? I had no notice that this question was to be raised, and therefore I have not been able to make an elaborate investigation; but I asked an hon. friend to bring me in a Hansard for 1865, a year chosen at random, and from that year I take a week, also chosen at random. This is the result. On Monday, June 26th, 1865, there were two questions put and no supplementaries. On Tuesday, the 27th, no questions were put, and of course, there were no supplementaries On Wednesday, the 28th, again there were no questions put. On Thursday, the 29th, three questions were put, and no supplementaries: and on Friday, the 30th, five questions were put, and no supplementaries.
  MR. COGHILL: Was Supply closured in those days?
  MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not interrupt in this irregular way.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks it was also the practice in those days for Members to interrupt a speaker with a series of argumentative questions of this kind. I do know, however, that the practice of which I speak is a comparatively new practice, and nobody who knows the constitution of the House will deny it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree to the historical accuracy of the statement I have made that the practice is a new one.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is perfectly true; but it is the result of hon. Members having been shut out of other opportunities of asking questions and bringing forward motions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman's point is this—that formerly on Tuesdays and Fridays liberty was given to private Members to bring forward special questions; but those questions were brought forward with ample notice to the Minister who had to deal with them. He had ample notice. He could consult his colleagues and his chief. There was ample time for consideration, and no danger could occur. It may be that the modern habit is due to this curtailment, this inevitable and, as I think, unfortunate curtailment of Members' opportunities; but will the House please mark the point I am now going to make? I do not complain of this practice, if kept within reasonable limits, with regard to any member of the Government, except the member responsible for foreign affairs. The hon. Member for East Mayo, who moved the adjournment, drew an appalling picture of a future in which the Irish Chief Secretary would be relieved from the wholesome process of cross-examination. When I was Chief Secretary I had a good many questions put to me, and I should have been very sorry that the power of putting and answering any questions should not have existed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then why deny the same privilege to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely my own friends might allow me to finish my statement without interruption. I should have been the last person when I was at the Irish Office to complain of the practice—and I am sure my hon. friend who is now Chief Secretary feels in the same way—because it does give an opportunity for stating a grievance, for replying to a grievance, and for showing that a grievance has not real foundation at all. Indeed, I do not believe you could carry on the work of government smoothly without the power of asking and answering questions. If a certain modification be adopted in this

  333
  process of cross-examination without notice, I think that, on the whole, it is a practice which has a great deal to be said for it in regard to the general domestic business of the country, But you come to an entirely different position of affairs when you are dealing with the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Recollect how you are playing with fire in this matter. I remember being told, I believe on very good authority, that one of the ablest and most dexterous predecessors of my noble friend as Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had on three ocasions in one fortnight to request the gentlemen in the Press Gallery to modify the wording of some answers he had given to supplementary questions lest they should produce some unfortunnate impression in the Chancelleries of other Powers. Every despatch which is sent to a foreign Government, and every telegram which contains instructions to foreign Ministers, is carefully drafted; every word of it is weighed, considered, and reconsidered, and it is perhaps submitted to the Cabinet before it is sent. And yet you ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or the Secretary if he be in this House, to say on the spur of the moment, without notice, without previous consideration, that which in its effects may be as dangerous as any formal communication by telegram or despatch. Is not that an impossible responsibility to throw upon the Under Secretary? The hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion is of opinion that it is sufficient protection for the Under Secretary to be able to say that he must ask for notice of the question, as he cannot answer it at the moment. Does not everybody know that the cases are common in which silence alone amounts to an answer, and that a refusal to reply gives rise to rumours and conjectures of the most dangerous and damaging description? How is it possible to obviate that great danger except by some general rule? If the Under Secretary can say as a general rule that notice must be given of supplementary questions, then no evil interpretation, no erroneous or dangerous construction, can be given to his silence. But if you take that rule away you leave the House, the diplomatic gallery, the newspapers here, the newspapers of
  334
  foreign countries, to put their own interpretation on that silence. And do you not think that consequences, not damaging to the Government, not damaging to the Under Secretary himself, but damaging to the nation as a whole, and, it may be, even to the peace of Europe, may result from the reckless use of this power of Ministerial cross-examination? The hon. Gentleman who moved this motion said that the House was by this rule deprived of privileges enjoyed by every other representative Assembly in the world. I venture to say there is not another representative Assembly in the world which allows such licence and latitude in questions on foreign affairs as are allowed in this House of Commons. Other Assemblies know well how difficult and delicate is the path of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, what pitfalls there are to the right and left of him; they know the jealousies that must be guarded against, the susceptibilities that must always be considered; and therefore they are far too wise not to fence round with every kind of precaution intervention in debate on foreign affairs on the part of individual members of those Assemblies, who, in pursuit of their own particular panaceas, may lead on a Minister to make a statement the effects of which would be not only far-reaching in point of extent, stretching, it might be, to the uttermost ends of the earth, and producing consequences that might take years or generations to remedy—
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman sought to deprive this House of privileges which were exercised by other Assemblies. On the contrary, I said we were being deprived of privileges which distinguished this House from every other House.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: I had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry for it. At all events, his interruption is sufficient evidence that in carrying out this rule, which has been in operation for two years, we are following at a distance a practice which every other House has found necessary in the national and patriotic interest. I

  335
  would not lift a finger to relieve either myself or any of my colleagues of a responsibility which affected merely the Government, or merely the party, or merely the domestic controversies in which we are from time to time engaged. We are here to deal with these controversies and to make the best case we can for ourselves and our party. But when we leave these domestic squabbles, when we come into the debatable area of foreign policy, then I do most earnestly beg the House not to press the Government to answer hastily and at random questions put by Gentlemen who, from the nature of the case may not know what they are doing, or what spark they are applying to what magazine, or may not be aware what international explosion they may be provoking. I am well convinced that if the House will endorse, as I hope they will, the action we have taken in this matter, they will endorse it not with the view of saving the Ministry, or the party, or any individuals on this bench, but in the full consciousness that the man who speaks at this Table for the Foreign Office is a man who has upon his shoulders already sufficient responsibility to make it most unwise to throw upon him the additional burden of expressing on the spur of the moment with absolute accuracy the facts of some difficult point of foreign policy. That can only be done by laying down that general rule which we have adopted, and I earnestly trust that the House will support us in maintaining it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House an ingenious, an earnest and in some parts even an impassioned argument-, which is, unfortunately, vitiated by the fact that it is irrelevant to the question at issue. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the habit, not of asking supplementary questions, but the habit of asking questions at all has greatly increased. But he had to admit, in answer to the interruption of my right hon friend near me, that that is largely due to the shutting to Members of the House of other means of obtaining information. Then we come to the point of supplementary questions. The right hon. Gentleman ignored one
  336
  great protection we have against the wanton use of supplementary questions, which is the presence in the chair of the Speaker, whose duty it is,—and I am bound to say, Sir, that you even in a more signal degree than your predecessor have discharged this duty—to prevent the practice of asking supplementary questions from developing into anything like abuse. I venture to say, Sir, that since we have had the advantage of your presiding over our deliberations a great improvement has taken place in this respect. Then I would point out that supplementary questions which are ad-addressed to any Minister can always be dealt with by that Minister, if he is not in a position to answer them, by the simple process of asking for notice. It so happens that we are speaking with considerable authority on the point, because I have sitting near me no fewer than three Gentlemen—my noble friend the Member for the Cricklade Division of Wiltshire, my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick—who have all filled the office of Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs Some of them I would specify ill particular my noble friend the Member for Cricklade—filled that position at a time when I do not think there was any lack of desire on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to extract information. Indeed, I do not think I am doing any wrong to those who took part in the proceedings in saying that it would not have aggravated them very seriously if their questions had had the effect of embarrassing the Government. I refer to the Parliament of 1880. I think, if the right hon. Gentleman exercises his mind, that even he at the back of his memory may find some trace of the proceedings to which I refer. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is now an established custom of the House: that the House has agreed to this means of curbing the desire of Members for information, and of sheltering the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I can only say that at the very opening of this Parliament, on 6th December, I openly protested against the continuance of this practice, and said that it reduced the privilege of asking questions to a farce. If the House will allow

  337
  me, I will quote a sentence or two which I used on that occasion. I said—
  "Let me give expression of a hope that there will not be continued the curious rule, originated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and novel to the House, of restricting the number of questions that can be put to the representative of that Department. I cannot understand why any such rule should exist, and if it has been assented to in the House of Commons it is simply because the House has been too astonished at it to bring the Government to book. The right hon. Gentleman and I the other day expressed our perfect confidence that Mr. Speaker would be able to conduct all our proceedings with perfect order, and in nothing has Mr. Speaker been more energetic and successful than in the preventing of unnecessary questions. Let us trust to him to prevent anything exceeding the points of ordinary propriety, but do not let us have this spectacle again, which reduces questions really to a fares, of allowing the representative of a Government Department to sit dumb in the presence of a number of questioners."*
  What is it we complain of? We make no complaint on the ground that supplementary questions ought to be allowed without limit. We admit that Mr. Speaker is acting in the interests of the House if he stops the incessant use of supplementary questions. I am not sure that this, being so serious a matter, ought not to be left, if not entirely, almost entirely, in the hands of the Leader of the House, the chief member of the Government. Let him, or in other cases the Minister principally concerned, say to the House, "It is to the public interest that this particular question should not be answered." Has there ever been a case where the House of Commons has refused such an appeal? Then we come to the point of the Minister being able to plead that he is not instructed, or that he would like -the matter being delicate time to consider the actual terms of the answer he would give. Has that ever been refused by the House of Commons, or grumbled against by the House of Commons? No, Sir. We are not in the habit of so treating Ministers and public affairs. But that is not the ease we have to deal with. The case we have to deal with is a general edict which has been passed by the Leader of the House that on no occasion and under no circumstances is this par-
  * See The Parliamentary Debates; [Fourth Series], Vol. Ixxxviii., page 120; Mr. Balfour's reply, page 122.
  338
  ticular Under Secretary to answer any supplementary question. And the consequence is this. An hon. Member addresses a question to a Minister and receives a cut-and-dried answer, or an answer that may be no answer at all—which sometimes happens—or he receives an ambiguous answer, which is very often the case. And yet when the hon. Member gets up and asks the Minister, "Did you mean Yes or did you mean No when you gave me that reply?" the Under Secretary is to sit and smile and shake his head, but dare not get up. Why, Sir, the thing is ludicrous. Let the right hon. Gentleman take off this absurd embargo, and I will answer for it—not on my own authority but from my knowledge of the House of Commons—that there will be no inconvenience to him, nor to the Government, nor to the Under Secretary, nor to the public interest. The House of Commons knows perfectly well the delicate nature of negotiations, and it will make allowances to this extent, that it will concede the time to give a deliberate and well-considered answer. The right hon. Gentleman says it is too much to expect that an Under Secretary on the spur of the moment should be prepared to answer the most delicate questions. But Under Secretaries, even the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, have to make speeches without special preparation or notice. He has to take part to-night in the debate on China; be will be asked a good many questions, I daresay, and he will have to answer them. He has no notice given to him what the nature of those questions will be. There must be some answer to them. Yet this is the poor helpless official who has to be hedged round with this artificial protection, which is, I say, against all precedent in the House of Commons and against the general interests of public life in this country. And there is another point. If we are not to get information as fully as we should like from the Under Secretary it must be got, I suppose, from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But we are not allowed in this House to refer to what passes in the other House of Parliament, and therefore this channel is provided for us, and an excellent channel no doubt it might be, an ample

  339
  one for us and also one which can be used without any prejudice to the Government or the country.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I am sorry not to be able to agree with the Leader of the House and the Leader of my Party. I think this is a very important constitutional question, and that the House will, perhaps—at least hon. Members on this side will—be liable to be misled by what I admit to be the very weighty and effective appeal made by the First Lord of the Treasury. The value of questions, especially under the present rules of the House, is very great. The rights of independent Members have been steadily encroached upon for a long period of time, and, although I speak as a private and independent Member, yet I have had some experience of the House of Commons. Having had the honour of a seat in it for twenty-one years, I venture to say that most of the valuable measures that have passed the House have been, in the first case, introduced by private Members. In the old times, as the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth has pointed out, it was always open to members to rise, ask a question, make a speech, and conclude with a motion. These rights have been taken away from us and, instead, we retain only the power of asking; questions. Now, what is the advantage of that? Not only do we obtain on occasions most important information, but the time of the House is greatly saved; for if it were not for this power Members would be driven to move the adjournment every night of the week in order to obtain the necessary information. What is the argument of the Government in opposing the views of hon. Members opposite? The argument is that this is a public danger. But why has it not been a public danger for the past twenty-five years? Is it to be pretended by the Leader of the House that my noble friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, now Minister for War, are, or were, less able to answer questions with wisdom and safety than the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean or the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division? I well remem-
  340
  ber when these right hon. Gentlemen held the office of Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs they were bombarded with questions night after night. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] Yes, Sir, and rightly and wisely bombarded with questions, because I maintain that the interests of the country were upheld by these questions and many foreign dangers were averted by the use of questions. But is it to be contended that these right hon. Gentlemen were more able to deal with such questions than the noble Lord now on the Treasury Bench? It is, of course, a reductio ad absurdum when that point is put fairly. If this order is enforced, then there can only be one answer to it; we must have the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly justified in stating that the power of questioning the Minister for Foreign Affairs was never used by private Members in the face of an appeal from the Minister not to pursue a particular question because it was against public interest or that notice should be given of the question. I hope, therefore, the First Lord of the Treasury will withdraw this order, which is more like the ukase or trade of despotic governments than the practice of a free Parliament. He may safely leave it to the good sense of the Members and the intelligence of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to deal with questions as they arise.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEdid not know what the Leader of the House meant when he spoke of the practice of asking supplementary questions as a recent growth. If he referred to the practice since 1865 he might as well quote the Parliamentary Register of the last century. There had been an entirely changed state of things since 3 865. Hardly any questions at all were asked previous to that time, and it was in 1882 that the practice of asking supplementary questions in foreign affairs first began. Members whose experience went back to that period, when the hon. Member who had just sat down, Lord R. Churchill, Sir H. Drummond-Wolff, and the present-Leader of the House (though in a much less degree) took an active part in the proceedings and in putting questions,

  341
  would remember that the practice of asking supplementary questions in foreign affairs was never so rife as it was in 1882, when he held the office of Under Secretary, down till 1885. In this matter everything depended on the tact which was exercised. No doubt a Minister in answering a question might do a great deal of harm, but no one would suggest that the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick or the present Viceroy of India were persons who from want of time had answered questions which were believed to be unwise. The patriotism of the House was never more conspicuously shown than in the manner in which it helped Ministers responsible for foreign affairs, and in refraining from putting questions which were believed to be dangerous. Many hon. Members would remember bow during the discussions on the Venezuelan question the House of Commons abstained from putting dangerous questions, and he was convinced that this was a course of action which it would always follow. The House would also assent to the suggestion that in the case of a difficult question opportunity should be given to consult the Secretary of State upon the wording of a certain answer. But at present the Under Secretary was placed in a humiliating and almost ridiculous position. He was placed in a position which weakened his office in the House of Commons, and he was deprived of that authority which he would naturally wish to exert with the House and his colleagues.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that what appeared to him an unconstitutional doctrine had been propounded under which a distinction was sought to be drawn between the head of a Department and the Minister representing it in the House of Commons, and it had been contended that it was desirable that an Under Secretary should have an opportunity of communicating with his chief before giving an answer to a particular question. This contention, in his judgment, struck at the root of Ministerial responsibility. He well remembered being told by Mr. Disraeli when he was Under Secretary, "You are responsible in this House for your Department if you are
  342
  in a difficulty come to me"; and no doubt the present Under Secretary could be trusted in the same way as Mr. Disraeli trusted his Under Secretaries. It seemed to him that the Government had shut the door after the horse had gone. It might be true that the Viceroy of India did from time to time give answers which occasionally startled his colleagues, but the practice followed by that Minister seemed to have led to an embargo being placed on his successors. He hoped, however, that the ukase of his right hon. friend would not be pressed further, as he had no doubt that his noble friend could be fully trusted to observe all necessary discretion. In fact, the only complaint he had to make with regard to the present representation of the Foreign Office in that House was that the present Under Secretary, being one of the best of their independent Members, had been stolen from them. He thought that Ministerial responsibility would receive a shock if the Under Secretary could not be trusted according to his own discretion, which he must always be allowed to exercise, to decide what were the questions he was justified in answering at once, and what were, the questions of which notice must be given.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am extremely glad that the hon. Member for East Mayo has brought this question before the House, and I think the House of Commons is under an obligation to him for so doing. It would be impossible for us to exaggerate the importance which attaches to this matter. The effect of this new rule that has been made is another step in the campaign which has been going on for a considerable time to deprive private Members of all opportunity of discussion and of obtaining information. Indeed, the object of the movement seems to be to gag the House and to degrade it. It is true that the practice with reference to questions has changed, but that change is the result of the deprivation of all opportunity on the part of private Members to discuss subjects on other occasions and to obtain information in other ways. The inevitable result of decreasing the opportunities of discussion by private Members has been to force them to increase the number of questions. I

  343
  think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has entirely misrepresented, if I may say so without offence, the real point taken by the hon. Member for East Mayo. No one denies that it must remain always in the discretion of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to decline in the public interest to answer certain questions. No one denies that there may be many questions addressed to the Under Secretary which he cannot answer without consulting his chief. No one denies that these occasions may constantly occur, and certainly I have never heard any complaint made by any Member of the House when such an answer was given. The Leader of the House, forsooth, says that if the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs replies either that the question ought not to be answered in the public interest, or that he must refer it for information to his chief, he may thereby create a wrong impression in foreign countries. If the supplementary question is one which he cannot answer in the public interest, that will be proved when it is put down on the Paper as a question. If it is a question which he cannot answer because he must refer it to his chief for information, he will be forced to answer it when he has got the information, and the complaint we make is that the Under Foreign Secretary in this House should be a mere dummy, that he should come here with his mouth closed and not be allowed to answer any question. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, questions of the most innocent and necessary character may have to be asked as the result of a misunderstanding of an answer which has been given. But it is proposed that there is to be a hard and fast rule that under no conceivable circumstances is the Under Secretary of State to be allowed to answer any supplementary question at all. That is an absurd position to put a Minister in. After all, Ministerial responsibility is Ministerial responsibility to the House of Commons. The House of Commons is, after all, the ruling body in this country, and it is not only humiliating that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs should be put in the position that he dare not and cannot, even if his judgment tells him otherwise, answer a supplementary question, but it is degrading the House of Commons,
  344
  and is certainly another step in what I believe is a deliberate campaign which has been going on for a number of years, the object of which is to deprive this House of proper opportunities of discussion and obtaining information, and a desire to gag the House of Commons. It is a question affecting the rights of the House of Commons. It is surely a strange thing in matters of this sort, upon which we are told the safety of the Empire depends, to find a sharp division between the two Front Benches. Why, if this practice, which has existed so many years, was really injurious to the safety of the Empire, was it never found out until two years ago? This practice has been going on during the twenty years I have been in the House. How is it that those who were responsible for the late government, and who in the ordinary course of events will some day or other be responsible for the government again, took a different view and believed that the practice which prevailed up to two years ago was not injurious to the safety of the Empire? I think my hon. friend deserves the thanks of the House and of the poeple of the country for having brought this question forward, and I confess it is a source of satisfaction to me that it is one of the Irish party who has come forward to heap coals of fire upon the heads of the English House of Commons by taking this stand in defence of its liberties, its independence, and its rights.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, the question really to be considered was: What is in the public interest? Supposing the proposal of the hon. Member for East Mayo were adopted, no really substantial change would be effected. The answers to the questions would still be refused. The only thing that would happen would be a change in the form in which the refusal was given. The responsibility for the refusal would be laid not on the inconvenience of the questions, but on the rigidity of a rule. He did not think that that would be a change for the better. The present system at any rate got rid of the possibility of the misconstruction of silence; and it was in consequence of that misconstruction that men of the most highly trained

  345
  minds, finding themselves in the face of an increasing volume of business, arguments, and complexity in foreign affairs, had arrived at the conclusion that the answering of these supplementary questions was one which could not be endured any longer, as being fraught with danger to the State. This practice had been arrived at for the protection of private character, and why should it not be adopted where the national interest was concerned? It had been laid down from the Chair that no supplementary questions could be asked imputing anything to an absent man or a private individual, because of the injustice of asking questions under circumstances which prevented their being answered. Was the protection given to private character not to be given to the national interest? The protection of the Chair, upon which the House was asked to rely, was one which was regarded with constantly increasing dislike and diffidence. How was discretion with respect to the right to put supplementary questions to be exercised by the Chair, and the Chair alone, without dragging the Chair into questions of public policy as distinguished from questions of order and procedure, and thereby degrading the Chair itself?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My right hon. friend who has just sat down has entirely confused the matter before the House. He has been dealing with the advisability or in advisability of putting supplementary questions. The House is dealing with the advisability or inadvisability of having these questions answered. That is quite another question. He forgets that at this moment the right of putting the question exists. What is denied—all that is denied—is the right of getting an answer. Questions are constantly being put to which no answers are given. What my right hon. friend the First Lord says is that when you put supplementary questions to the Under Secretary and no answer is given, the silence itself will be the answer. But that is so now. I have myself repeatedly put questions to which silence was the answer. My right hon. friend who was until recently Under Secretary
  346
  for Foreign Affairs will remember that on one occasion I asked if the Foreign Office was absolutely ignorant of everything, and his answer was silence—from which the House drew the natural inference. I wish to join in the appeal of my right lion, friend below the gangway that the First Lord of the Treasury should reconsider his non possumus attitude on this subject. The question is really very important. We have been deprived—I am not complaining of it at the present moment—we have in the public interest been deprived in this House of numerous opportunities for bringing matters before the House which previously existed. As a matter of fact, we have practically only left to us now questions, the Estimates, and Amendments to the Address, which is, of course, an opportunity to be taken in extremities—such an extremity to which I myself have been reduced. There are the Estimates, and when these are under discussion the Under Secretary is bound to answer question after question. He has no protection there. If the First Lord is going to throw a shield over him with regard to questions put at the commencement of public business, what about the questions that are showered at him on the Estimates? There is no gag there. No relief is given to the poor noble Lord in that respect. Why, surely the thing has gone too far or not far enough. If you are going to forbid the answering of supplementary questions before five o'clock you must forbid him answering them from five to twelve o'clock, and I think he will be pleased at that. Questions are constantly being answered—inadvertently, no doubt—so that the answer is either unintelligible or ambiguous. The answers are often so ambiguous that it is impossible to comprehend their full scope and purpose, unless they are to some extent explained in replies to supplementary questions. The former Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs felt himself compelled to reply to supplementary questions.
  MR. BRODRICK: The only occasions on which I answered supplementary questions were occasions when it was alleged that I had not fully answered the question on the Paper
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his testimony, which has proved what I have stated. I said that an answer might be ambiguous or insufficient, and might necessarily require an answer to a supplementary question. My right hon. friend is honest enough to admit that he, has given them. My point is that an answer may be so manifestly incomplete or ambiguous, or, for some reason, so incomprehensible as to absolutely require that a supplementary question should be asked. The First Lord of the Treasury gives as a reason for maintaining this entirely new order with respect to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that it is two years old. I say that two years is a very small time in the history of a House like this. For hundreds of years elucidatory questions have been answered, and we have had only two years' experience of this order, which is there fore very modern indeed. But why cannot the First Lord leave it to the discretion of the Under Secretary himself? Why cannot he leave him to say, as in the case of every other Minister on that bench, "I want notice of the question," or "I must in the public interest decline to reply," or, as we have seen tonight, to make neither of these answers but sit still in his seat This new order did not exist during the tenure of office of Lord Curzon, or that of any but one previous Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I do not know why it has been imposed on the noble Lord. It seems to me to be a most unmerited reflection—most especially on the noble Lord who has been brought into the Government to strengthen it. Why should he be told that he is not to answer supplementary questions when Lord Curzon was allowed to do so? Is it to be suggested that you can trust a Curzon and not a—not the noble Lord? The Under Secretary of State in this House is the only medium by which we can get any knowledge whatever of foreign affairs, and to say to him that he is not to answer supplementary questions, and that he cannot be trusted, is to my mind to say that he is not fit for his post. I must say that I believe he is fit for his post. I believe that he is perfectly capable of taking care of himself—quite as capable as Lord Curzon. Let me remind the
  348
  Leader of the House that it was precisely in answering supplementary questions that Lord Curzon made his great reputation. It was not in answers that he brought down from the Foreign Secretary in another place; it was in those which by his quickness, readiness, and brilliancy he invented himself in the face of this House. I am perfectly convinced that my noble friend is capable of the same thing. Why should he be prohibited from making here the great reputation which led another noble Lord to the Viceroyalty of India? I think it perfectly cruel of the First Lord to maintain in conference and in concert, as he tells us, with the rest of the cruel Ministry this shocking prohibition that is placed on the noble Lord. But this is really a very serious matter. I regret that it has been brought forward in such a shape as this, for this motion for adjournment raises a false issue. But this is another illustration of the necessity of questions. The matter has been brought forward on a motion for the adjournment of the House, because it could not be brought forward in any other way. Would my right hon. friend have given us a day for this question? Not he. [Laughter.] He laughs. It is a matter for merriment! I think on the contrary that it is precisely one of those matters on which not only the liberties and the rights but the very efficacy of this House depends. It seems to me that unless this House is to have the opportunity of raising matters by the questioning of Ministers for information its use will be very nearly disappearing. Therefore I join in the appeal to my right hon. friend to reconsider the situation, and to see if he cannot give us some hope that now at least the noble Lord will have his muzzle taken off, and be enabled to answer supplementary questions with that ease and fluency which distinguished his predecessor.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This question has already been considered from more than one point of view, but I think there is one element which might be eliminated from the discussion. That is the point of view of the interest of the Chair. I do not see how the interest of the Chair,

  349
  which, was used as an argument by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield, is really germane to the matter. As I understand, both you, Sir, and your predecessors have controlled supplementary questions solely on the ground of whether they arose out of the answer given by the Minister or whether they came within the rules of the House. The control of the questions addressed to the Foreign Office, in so far as it is exercised on these grounds, places no strain upon the Chair which does not rest upon it in dealing with questions addressed to other Departments. In fact, I understood you, Sir, when the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was speaking, to deprecate any idea that the authority of the Chair was exercised on the ground of public policy. The question of public policy surely must rest with Ministers. Let us consider this matter from the points of view of the public interest and of the convenience of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Those, I think, are the only two things which are really germane. The public interest is by far the more important, and I only notice the other because no one could have been in the position of Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs without being conscious of certain inconveniences. There are, no doubt, certain inconveniences in regard to questions, especially in regard to questions addressed to the Foreign Office; but, if alterations are to be made, this is not the one I should have chosen from the point of view either of convenience of the Under Secretary to the Foreign Office or of the public interest. The real inconvenience which I found when I was at the Foreign Office was not supplementary questions; it was the question at short notice. It was the question which appeared on the Paper in the morning and which was to be asked in the House in the afternoon that undoubtedly caused inconvenience in the Office. One was unwilling, as the question was on the Paper, not to attempt to answer it. But I think there are certain inconveniences and sometimes, perhaps, danger likely to result from the attempt to get the
  350
  information up in the Office at a few hours notice, and the giving of an answer, a written answer in most cases, which could not be modified afterwards and which, if important facts had been overlooked or considerations had not been thoroughly discussed in the Office, might lead to danger afterwards. The answering of questions at five minutes or a day's notice, I think, is the real inconvenience, but that does not require any rule, because if it is explained to Members they will always give longer notice. The real inconvenience and the real danger lies in that fact, because if due notice had been given the Under Secretary would come down having got up the subject thoroughly. We have been debating this matter rather as if any question addressed to the Foreign Office might be asked without notice. That cannot be done now. It must be a supplementary question germane to the subject, and if the Under Secretary has had ample notice of the question which appears on the Paper then, I think, his familiarity with the subject will be such as should enable him to answer the supplementary question, if it is a simple one, on the spot, or to decide whether danger lurked in the question. I think that, when a question appears on the Paper and the Under Secretary is considering what answer he is going to give, the knowledge that it is desirable to avoid supplementary questions, or to anticipate them, is undoubtedly an element in making the original answer as clear and as full as possible. I believe that, in the public interest, what the House ought to do is to insist upon, or at all events in every way to encourage, the giving of long notice of the original question to the Under Secretary, in order that he may be fully prepared on the whole subject. If that is done I do not believe that any danger lurks in the asking of supplementary questions. Some things connected with the Foreign Office, no doubt, are exceedingly difficult to deal with and require much consideration. Take, for instance, what is happening in China, where many Powers are concerned in concert. I can quite understand that there any answer to supplementary questions might be a very risky

  351
  matter. But take the administration of Uganda, Any question addressed to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs upon that subject is as purely a departmental question as any question that is addressed to the War Office or any other Government office. There are quite a large number of questions addressed to the Foreign Office which deal with matters as purely departmental as those addressed to Ministers representing other offices, and yet this alteration is to apply to the whole of the questions. I think it is an unnecessarily rigid rule. The Under Secretary has to run in this House a very severe gauntlet from time to time, but the most severe is not in answering supplementary questions; it is in the debate on a Vote on Account. He cannot always have warning of everything that is to be raised. Things occur to hon. Members in the debate, and questions come up covering the whole range of foreign affairs. The Under Secretary then not only has to give answers, but he has to deal with these questions exhaustively in debate, and sometimes with the most important of them without any opportunity of preparation. With the most important, of course, he ought to be familiar, but he cannot have time to prepare any speech on those particular subjects on these particular occasions; and I think that the Under Secretary who is capable of getting up on a Vote on Account and of dealing seriously with the whole subject of foreign affairs in unprepared speeches is capable of deciding on the spur of the moment whether it is advisable to answer or not a question on a matter which he has already prepared in the office. There can be only one justification for this rule, and that is if the House had pressed questions without notice upon the Under Secretary. But the House never does so. When it asks questions, especially in connection with the Foreign Office, the House has always had the good sense and the patriotism to recognise that, if the Under Secretary asks for further notice, that must be accepted as final. It has always so accepted it, and over and over again, before this rule came into force, Under Secretaries have continually asked for further notice of supplementary questions, even when they arose out of the answer
  352
  given to the main question. If that is so, and as all in the House are reluctant to increase and multiply restrictions more than is absolutely necessary, I do think, considering the temper which the House has always shown in previous years, it would have been better in this matter to rely upon the discretion of the Under Secretary to ask for further notice when the question was inconvenient or where the answer was to his mind doubtful. I am sure that the Government might have relied now, as they have always done in previous years, upon the good sense and the patriotism of the House, especially in connection with foreign affairs, not to press those questions.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not desire to trouble the House at any length, but as two of those who have held the position of Under Secretary to the Foreign Office have given their experience, and as my experience in this respect has been a peculiar one, perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words. I should honestly have been glad to have been able to agree with what has fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite. The hon. Baronet has treated this question as if the House had a record so admirable with regard to its treatment of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that no possible cause could exist for the change which my right hon. friend the Leader of the House has made. That is not only not the fact, but I venture to say it is the exact reverse of the fact. Take the experience of my noble friend Lord Curzon. The House, the hon. Baronet said, had never pressed questions on the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs without notice. I say, without fear of contradiction, in the presence of those who recollect the circumstances, and after frequent conferences on this very subject with Lord Curzon, who was the last man in this House to complain of any attack upon him, and who had, as everybody knows, an adroitness and ability to meet attack which caused him rather to court it than to shirk it, that that is not so. I was rather amused to hear my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn pay Lord Curzon the high tribute that he did a few minutes ago, and I felt inclined, when I remember the way

  353
  in which he used to allude to Lord Curzon's answers to supplementary questions, to ask, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" For now, what he used to term insolence is brilliancy, and all the morasses into which I remember my hon. friend used to take such credit to himself for having immersed Lord Curzon are now referred to by him as avenues to the highest distinction. I cannot help recalling this fact, that when the question of Crete was under discussion Lord Curzon, who had never complained, and who was not one of those who thought that supplementary questions should be altogether abolished, because he was himself rather fond of the game, told me that on one occasion he had fifteen questions addressed to him, and that to each of them there were one or two supplementary questions. Although he felt, over and over again, that he should not be pressed in the public interest, he was pressed by speaker after speaker, until at last you, Sir, intervened and preserved him from further questions.
  MR. DILLON: How could he be pressed by speaker after speaker?
  MR. BRODRICK: By question after question; and this inquisition went on sometimes for ten minutes on a single question, and that at a moment when a single slip might have had a serious effect on the conduct of negotiations on diplomatic questions. I wish to call the attention of the House, above all, to the experience of the last two years. If this restriction had acted either unfairly or had been resented by the House at large, surely it must have had one of two effects during the last two years—either it must have led to a large increase of the number of questions put on a subsequent day, or it must have led to the exercise of the undoubted right of Members who were not satisfied of moving the adjournment of the House. I was Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs during at least as exciting a period in regard to China as we have had on any question during recent years, and I did not answer supplemental questions, though I did endeavour to give to important questions the fullest and clearest answer, to which I think the House is entitled. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I had less
  354
  questions during that vexed period on China than any other Under Secretary ever had in much less troublous times; and as regards adjournments, I will undertake to say that a study of Hansard will show that since 1880 motions for the adjournment of the House were never fewer than during the time that I was unable to answer supplementary questions as Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. These are not uninteresting facts which bear on the present situation. May I say one word more? This matter has been treated as if it were a question simply appertaining to this House. I do not think my right hon. friend's argument on public grounds has altogether received the force which ought to be attached to it. I have had an opportunity of knowing, not only what was the feeling of our Ambassadors abroad with regard to this change, but also what was the feeling of foreign Ministers who are friendly to this country; and it is a curious fact that, although I have never introduced the subject, nearly all of our Ambassadors, and in several instances Ministers of Powers friendly to this country, have congratulated me on the change, and have informed me how greatly it had simplified their duties.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: They would wish that there should be no questions at all.
  MR. BRODRICK: Of course there must be questions. That is inevitable. If a question appears on the Paper in the morning, there is time for deliberation, but it is an absurdity to suppose, in these days, that you can safely put a chance question to an Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I can give instances in which an expression which was taken back the next moment has been telegraphed all over Europe. I do not think that you can compare any other office to this.
  MR. DILLON: I compare the Colonial Office to it.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will take an instance of the Colonial Office. My noble friend happened to misquote a despatch in the hurry of a reply to the hon. Gentleman. What harm did he do by mis-

  355
  quoting this despatch? The correction was made to-day. It was not a diplomatic question immediately pressing, and it is not at all likely that harm would be done. That remark could not be made in regard to the negotiations going on in China. In every Chancellery in Europe a misquotation of that kind would be taken up. We should hear of it in the negotiations in Peking, and we should probably hear of it in every capital in Europe. Obviously, when you are dealing with foreign affairs you are dealing with much more delicate questions, and in regard to which a slip is much more difficult to recall. An hon. Member has said that we wait until the House of Lords has spoken. I do not think you will find a single occasion in the last two years in which a statement was made in the House of Lords which was not simultaneously made in this House. It is not a matter of supplementary questions. It is only a question whether any hon. Member chooses, at the time a question is put in the House of Lords, to put down a question here. I know by experience how varied are the questions which are brought before us in Committee of Supply, but I would say that it happened to me, over and over again, to have an opportunity of consulting my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, or of deciding in the hour or two which intervenes between the speech and the reply whether it is desirable or not to touch on a particular topic. Everybody knows that in the brief interval which takes place between a question and the time of reply deliberation is impossible. It is because I think that we ought to have in this House, in the public interest, something like the protection which is afforded in the House of Lords, and in every other Assembly throughout the world, that I trust the House will continue this most salutary reform, which has long been desired by all connected with foreign affairs, and which, I think, in its justice and in its expediency, as well as in its working, it is desirable to continue.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it is singularly appropriate that this debate should have arisen upon a motion which arose out of the question of the suicide of certain Ministers of State. Certainly,
  356
  if the position taken up by the Government is not receded from, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House will be degraded to the position of an automaton in which a phonograph is concealed. Ministers themselves have frequently been asked to introduce the innovation of printing their answers to questions on the Paper, but they have always refused—for their own protection, as they have said; but now the Government have declared that all the Minister for Foreign Affairs will do is to give his answer, and nothing more is to be extracted from him. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that this innovation was greatly approved of by the Ambassador to the Sultan of Turkey. I have no doubt that by the Sublime Porte this innovation is very hopefully regarded, because it will greatly lesson the number of supplementary questions as to the exact numbers of Armenians who are massacred at any time. There is no doubt that the Sublime Porte fully recognises the importance of the change; but is it by arguments of that description that a rule of this kind is to be recommended to the free House of Commons and the free people whom we are supposed to represent? Let me put another point. It is admitted by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield that an important, serious, and momentous change has been made in the rules of the House of Commons. Whenever before were the rules of the House of Commons changed except by Standing or Sessional Order? If hitherto there has been a right in a Member to put a supplementary question and you take away that right, can the right of any Member of this House be taken away except by formal and recorded rule? Now, for the first time, we are told that the Prime Minister or the First Lord of the Treasury can of his own motion, by a mere Ministerial order, make a permanent and momentous change in the practice of the House of Commons. We acknowledge, Sir, that the Chair can do that. The Chair is the representative of the House of Commons at large, and it is your duty and privilege to protect the rights of the minority of this House. But who is it that seeks to make this change in the rules of the House? It

  357
  is the dominant party, and the dominant party are doing this, it is said, in the interests of the country, but admittedly against the interest and the wish of the minority. Never in the experience of the oldest Member of the House has an occasion arisen when a Minister in the British Cabinet—whether by decision in Cabinet or how we know not—has come and said, "On my own motion I will make in the immemorial practice of the House a change, and give you no opportunity of discussing it." The closure was nothing to this. I remember well that when the closure was proposed in 1882, Mr. Gladstone devoted the entire of a winter session to the matter, and the first rule took, I believe, eighteen nights debate, of which, I think, the present First Lord of the Treasury occupied the most part. But now, on this important question affecting the relations of this country, the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can make a muzzling order simply upon his own ipse dixit. It is said that foreign affairs are peculiarly sacrosanct, that there is some special reason for dealing with them in a particular manner. If so, all the more necessity for this rule being considered by the House of Commons at large. What has hitherto been the position of the Opposition? I have always understood that when foreign affairs were in question they were regarded by the Front Opposition Bench as being, so to speak, extra-territorialised; they were supposed to be something not exactly in the arena of party debate. Even when the Fourth Party existed we all remember very well that Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Cross, and those of that day never gave any encouragement to the incursions of the noble Lord and his efficient friends who distinguished themselves in the attacks on the foreign policy of Mr. Gladstone, the reason of that being that it had been the practice of the Front Opposition Bench to regard foreign politics as a matter upon which both sides were at one. I would ask, have the Front Opposition Bench consented to this arrangement? Have they been consulted about the matter? I remember very well when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth was Leader of this House, supported as he was by a
  358
  large contingent of Irish Members, who were chafing very much under what we supposed to be the obstruction of that time to Irish measures; again and again we protested against the extraordinary latitude which we conceived he allowed to the then Opposition. What was always the reply we received? That he considered the position of Leader of the House of Commons to be far more important than that of a member of the Government, as he had the interests of the House of Commons as a whole to consider, and therefore he refused in any way to tamper with what he conceived to be the prerogatives of the Opposition. If, therefore, foreign affairs be, so to speak, a ruled-off paddock in which we should fear to tread, why has not a rule of this kind, if it is to be made, been submitted to the Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench who have had Ministerial experience, and who we must assume, at all events, are as anxious and as zealous for the rights and interest of the foreign policy of this country as are Members on the other side of the House? We find man after man who has held this office getting up and stating that there was no necessity for this rule. The fact of the matter is either that Foreign Secretaries in the past were too smart or else present Foreign Secretaries are too stupid. Anyone who knows the noble Lord and his distinguished career in this House would be very sorry to make that reflection upon him, because we all know his great ability. Equally we were told on the highest authority that Lord Curzon has gone off in a blaze of glory to India, although he did not do so without having been first created an Irish Peer. Why is it that the affairs of the Foreign Office have attached to them that special importance which entitles them to this singular treatment? What are the facts? When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was the Secretary to the Admiralty, and when the British Fleet was sent to Besika Bay, the whole question of foreign affairs was discussed practically as a Navy question. You could then get at the Foreign Office by asking questions about the Navy. Take the Army, for instance. Again and again

  359
  if there is a question of the mobilisation of troops and despatching men abroad, can we not get the information we require about them by asking questions from the Army officials? If this goes on it will be necessary also to prevent these questions being asked from the Gentlemen connected with the Army and Navy. Therefore it seems to me that the rule! of the right hon. Gentleman has wholly and entirely broken down. What do we see in recent years? The most important questions in recent years, apart from China, have been questions affecting not the Foreign Office but the Colonial Office. Has anyone ever seen the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies so reticent as to be unwilling to answer a supplementary question? Why, Sir, on the contrary, he revels in it, and it does appear to me that it is upon questions affecting the Colonial Office that, to a very great extent, the foreign policy of England has turned. Take the question of the number of troops in South Africa. Does that question not trench upon the Foreign Office? Does the state of war in South Africa not affect your interests in China? Are the whole interests of the Empire not so interlaced and interlocked that any question may become a foreign, colonial, Army or a Navy question? I think I have demonstrated by this fact the absurdity of limiting the muzzle to the replies of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Why, the whole pack will have to be muzzled, and not the leading dog. I therefore think that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government should reconsider the position that he has taken up in this matter. For myself, I do not think that, except in regard to the Armenians, I have ever put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in my life. I do not think, with that exception, that I have ever made a speech on foreign affairs, and, practically speaking, I take no interest in any country except Ireland. Therefore, I do not think that I am at all likely to infringe any privilege accorded on this question; but it does seem to me that the Government have, in order to check a particular evil, adopted a cure which is far worse than the disease. My ex-
  360
  perience of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is that there is no one who is more anxious to recognise the rights of hon. Members as a whole than he is. I believe that this debate has arisen because the noble Lord seemed to have put this matter too bluntly, or, if he will allow me to say so without offence, because he blurted out too suddenly a rule which he would have done well to have embellished with more dialectic ornamentation. That being my feeling, I think that the debate will do good, and in the end we shall see the rule fall into what an American orator once called "innocuous desuetude."
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he had had the advantage of perusing a speech made in Lancashire the other day by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), the Leader of the Irish party, which clearly foreshadowed the proceedings of to-day. The hon. Member spoke of the union which now existed amongst Irish Members, whose new-found harmony had made itself so conspicuous that day, and which had shown itself so successful in impeding the business. The hon. Member for Waterford told his Lancashire friends that, although the good old days of obstruction had passed away, the Irish Members wore now prepared to produce practically the same result by every one of them—as he described it—"taking an intelligent interest in public affairs. That was the new name for obstruction and he (Mr. MacIver) had to congratulate the hon. Member for Waterford upon the complete success with which he had, as it were, "drawn a red herring across the track" of Parliamentary progress. He must be a proud man to-day, to have made the Front Opposition Bench follow so humbly at his heels. Everybody know that the debate was only intended to waste time. He (Mr. MacIver) suggested that it should now cease, as everything which could usefully be said upon the actual subject which was before them had already been said by the Leader of the House.
  MR. BARTLEY: I should like to say one or two words on this matter, and I appeal to the Leader of the House to

  361
  reconsider the very strong position he has taken up on this subject. I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was somewhat unfortunate, He said that if we did not get a proper answer to a supplementary question we could have resort to moving the adjournment of the House. I think it is very unfortunate to suggest such an arrangement, because it is a very awkward one, which leads to a great waste of time, and it should not have been suggested as a remedy for this comparatively small evil. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that this is the practice adopted in foreign parliaments; but if there is one thing that suggests to me that we are on the wrong tack it is that foreign countries seem to approve of this action. I do not think that in this matter we should take a leaf from other countries, for the very strength of this country has been built up by the free and independent discussion of all these great subjects. I resent the idea that foreign affairs should be considered so sacred and secret that they cannot be answered in the House of Commons. If the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is competent for his position, he is quite competent to decide whether any question should be asked or answered in the House of Commons. I think the whole principle is a very small one. If he is competent to hold that great position it is insulting him to suggest that he is not fit to decide whether a supplementary question is an important one or one which he should answer, or decide whether the answer should be postponed to another day. I do think that this practice of making the Government of the country rather too slavishly dependent upon one or two Ministers is a growing evil. I have always said that it is an evil not to have independence of opinion in the various Ministers of the Crown, and if even the small supplementary questions have to be deferred to consult the head of the Department, it is an act of slavish dependence which has never been the means of making Ministers great in this country. In regard to the noble Lord himself, I am sure that we all feel that he is perfectly competent to answer these questions, and I think the best plan would be for him to make a point of settling
  362
  this question himself. I am quite sure he can do this if he will make it a point to go into the question himself, and, like Lord Curzon and all those who have preceded him, claim the right to decide these questions for himself. As a matter of principle I think that we, as private Members, who have so few privileges left, are bound to protest against this growing evil.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he believed that a rule of this kind, if adhered to, would work more against the Government than it would help hon. Members on the other side. It was too much for them to expect that the rule would only apply when the Conservatives were in office, for no doubt when his right hon. friends on the Front Opposition Bench came into office they would take advantage of the rule, which would tell very much more against the Conservative Members than it did against the Opposition, for the simple reason that greater interest in the Foreign Office and foreign affairs was taken by hon. Members on the Conservative side than by hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House. As a rule they expected to have more questions put from the Opposition side than from the Ministerialists, but if an examination were made of the number of questions put it would be found that at least 60 per cent of them in regard to general matters came from the Opposition side of the House. If the number of questions relating to the Foreign Office and foreign affairs was ascertained he ventured to say that even in this House, while the Conservatives were in office and in power, it would be found that the large majority of questions on foreign matters came from Members on the Conservative side of the House, which showed that greater interest was taken on the other side of the House in Foreign Office questions than on this side of the House. Therefore, if the muzzle was put upon private Members he ventured to point out that it would affect hon. Members opposite very much more than the Opposition. If the House acquiesced in this rule he was afraid that it might eventually spread to other departments. He quite agreed with what was said by the Leader of the Irish party that this was only another step in the

  363
  increasing practice of diminishing the rights of Members of the House. That had been the policy in the past of the Government, and it would been the future, and it would be found eventually that the arguments which had just been addressed to the House with respect to foreign questions would also be applied to domestic questions. If this muzzle was put on matters affecting the Post Office, he had no doubt that the Postmaster General would come down to that House and say that the permanent officials were unanimously of the opinion that the system had worked beautifully, and that it was to the advantage of the State that supplementary questions should not be put upon Post Office business. And so, eventually, the rule might be applied to every department of the State.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he believed that as a rule the Under Secretaries of the Foreign Office were quite as competent as any other Ministers, but no Ministers were infallible. It was a peculiarity, however, attaching to the administration of the Foreign Office that an indiscretion there would be likely to do very much more harm than if it wore committed anywhere else, and that was really the whole matter. They were told that the Opposition were so patriotic that they would never use any advantage of that kind or press a question which it would be against the public interest to answer. How silly and idle were such pretences, which nobody practised and which nobody believed in. Every Opposition, when they saw a party advantage in a question, wore always inclined to press the Government hard whenever they had the opportunity. He did not blame the Opposition for doing that, because that was what they were there for, but the danger was that in the peculiar region of Foreign Affairs a little indiscretion on the part of a
  Minister in regard to a question or an answer might produce a national calamity. In the British Museum or the Bodleian Library they were not allowed to use matches. Still, they might argue that they were all perfectly competent to use matches and strike them all over the building without danger. The reason for such a regulation in the British Museum or the Bodleian Library was not because those buildings were more likely to be burned by the indiscreet use of matches than any other public institution, but because if they were burned it would amount to a national catastrophe. And that was the case with the subject under discussion. The object of the rule in this House was clear and straightforward, and undoubtedly it would guard the national interest of the country against aggressive indiscretion on the part of the Opposition, and the defensive indiscretion of a Minister. What consideration would an Opposition exercise in such a matter? The Cabinet made a rule two years ago, and they based it on grounds of public policy. No one believed that it was based upon any other ground. The Government put forward this rule, and now consideration for the national well-being was to be brushed aside by the Opposition, and entirely lost sight of, in order to secure a party advantage. They should not delude themselves by supposing that an Opposition would be so patriotic that they would not always take advantage of this. He earnestly hoped that the Government would, in the interests of the country, be supported in this matter. If ever there was an occasion on which the House of Commons ought to rise above partisan motives it was this occasion, and in the national interest he made this appeal.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 249. (Division List No. 2.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brown,George M. (Edinburgh)

  Allen, CharlesP.(Glouc.Stroud

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bell, Richard

  Bryce, Bight Hon. James

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Black, Alexander William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ascquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

  Blake, Edward

  Burns, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Boland, John

  Burt, Thomas

  Barlow, John Emmott

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Boyle, James

  Caine, William Sproston

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Brand, Hon Arthur G.

  Caldwell, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Perks, Robert William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, William(Carnarvonsh.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Price, Robert John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reddy, M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lambert, George

  Reid,SirR.Threshie (Dumfries

  Crean, Eugene

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crombie, John William

  Leamy, Edmund

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Daly, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph (Stockport)

  Roche, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Russell, T. W.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Scott, Chas.Prestwich(Leigh)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon J. (Kent)

  Shipman, Dr. John

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Duncan, James H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Arthur, William(Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R(Northants

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Govern, T.

  Strachey, Edward

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Evans, Samuel T.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mather, William

  Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas J A (Glamorgan,Gower

  Field, William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen

  Thompson,E. C. (Monaghan,N.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

  Thomson. F. W. (York, W.R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tully, Jasper

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Newnes, Sir George

  Ure, Alexander

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Nolan, Col John P.(Galway,N.

  Wallace, Robert

  Grant, Corrie

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Norman, Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

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

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipper'y Mid.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  White, Patrick(Meath,North)

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W.R.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Doherty, William

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harwood, George

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

  Wodehouse, Hon. A. (Essex)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Helme, Nerval Watson

  O'Mara, James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hobhouse, C. E.H.(Bristol,E.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Mr. Dillon and Mr. John

  Holland, William Henry

  Palmer, George Wm(Reading)

  Ellis.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir Alex.F.

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

  Bowles,Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour. Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Brassey, Albert

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balfour,Maj.K.R.(Christchch.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Bull, William James

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bignold A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bigwood, James

  Carlile, William Walter

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  366

  367

  Cecil, Lord Hugh(Greenwich

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hope, J. F. (SheffieldBrightside

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Horner, Frederick William

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Radcliffe, R. F.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Randles, John S.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howard, J. (Mid'x, Tottenham

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ridley, Hn. M W. (Stalybridge)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Corbett, T L (Down, North)

  Kennaway.Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney,Col.W(Salop)

  Round, James

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Keswick, William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kimber, Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dewar, T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Lambton, Hon.FrederickWm.

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

  Dickinson, Hubert Edmond

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Linc'n)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lawrence, William F.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lee,Capt A.H (Hants,Fareh'm

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Duke, Edward Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir Wm. H.

  Leighton, Stanley

  Smith,HC.(North'mb.Tyns'de

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower,FrederickN.S.

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Faber, George Denison

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol,S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Spencer, E. (W. Bromwich)

  Fergusson, Rt. HnSirJ (Manc'r)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Finch, George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stewart, Sir Mk. J.M'Taggart

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col Francis(Lowestoft)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macartney.Rt. Hn. WGEllison

  Stroyan, John

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fitzroy.Hn. Edward Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(OxfdUni.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim,E.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed w. Murray

  Foster, Sir M (London Univ.)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbro',W

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Garfit, William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H(CityofLond.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Vincent,Col.SirCEH(Sheffield

  Gordon,Hn.JE.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Maxwell, W.J. (Dumfriesshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Goschen.Hon. George Joachim

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Webb, Colonel William G.

  Greene, Sir E. W.(Bury St.Ed.

  Midward, Colonel Victor

  Welby, Lt.-Col ACE(Taunton)

  Greene,W.Raymond- (Cambs.

  Mitchell, William

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Whiteley,H(Ashton-und-Lyne

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Moore, William (Antrim, N)

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hain, Edward

  Morgan, D. J.(Walthamstow)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Wilson, J W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptford

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

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Mid'x

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn E.R.(Bath)

  Hamilton,Marqof(L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Rt Hn AGraham (Bute

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

  Hardy,Laurence(K'nt,Ashf'rd

  Myers, William Henry

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Harris, F Leverton(Tynemouth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wyndham, George

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Peel, Hon. William Robert W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Henderson, Alexander

  Penn, John

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Percy, Earl

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.

  Powell, Sir, Francis Sharp

NEW WRITS.
Ordered, That in all cases where the seat of any Member has been declared void on the ground of Corrupt Practices or Illegal Practices no Motion for the issue of a new Writ shall be made without two clear days' previous notice on the Notice Paper of the House, and that such Notice be considered before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions. —(Sir William Walrond.)

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
[THIRD DAY'S DEBATE.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th February],"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, as followeth:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Forster.)
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): I think perhaps the attitude of diffidence with which an Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs often addresses the House of Commons may probably be considerep to be not unnaturally increased upon the present occasion. There has been such a bright light thrown upon him during the last hour or two, and attention has been called in so prominent a degree to the extreme delicacy of his functions, that I feel that everything which I say on the present occasion will be watched by hon. Gentlemen with an extra amount of care, and that I ought to arrange my observations accordingly. Permit me to say in the first place that I very much regret, if I may say so with great respect, the discussion which has just come to an end; because foreign affairs ought to
370
be conducted, as far as possible, in a peaceful atmosphere, as far removed as may be from the polemical condition which has recently characterised the House; and I hope nothing I shall say will prolong that polemical condition of the atmosphere. May I also say, if the hon. Member for East Mayo will give me his attention for a moment, that I particularly regret that any observation of mine should have seemed to him in the least discourteous at an earlier period of our proceedings.
MR. DILLON: The noble Lord is quite mistaken. I was very much obliged to him for his observations, for they enabled me to move my motion. I had no quarrel with the noble Lord; on the contrary, he gave me an opportunity of raising the question.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that I was brought into conflict with him. But I think the debate which has just closed may have this effect—for my part, I shall take the very greatest care, in the drawing of the answers to questions in this House, that they may be as full as they possibly can be consistently with the public interest, and I shall never forget, what I never have forgotten since I have been a Member of this House, the absolute right of the House of Commons to have all the information which it is in the power of a Minister to give.
When the House adjourned on Friday night I was venturing to call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the commercial interests were really the principal interests of this country in China, but I said that in the crisis which has taken place there it might be necessary for the consideration of the punishment of the offenders in China to take precedence over all other questions. I may say, perhaps, to the hon. Member for East Mayo, now, that as far as we are concerned we should not consider suicide to be a proper alternative to the death penalty which we demand against these high-placed officials.
MR. DILLON: The noble Lord has given a good answer now to the question I put to him.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I will revert at once to the considerations of a commercial character, at any rate in the first place, in regard to the Chinese question. The hon. Member for Barnsley complained on Friday night of the great delay which had taken place. I fancy he extended it to all the operations in China, both to the drawing of the Note and the enforcement of the demands of the Powers. Undoubtedly, Sir, the delay has been very great. I do not think the most ardent admirer of the Concert would ever accuse it of lightning-like rapidity. Its operations are generally very deliberate, and the Chinese themselves have no reputation for any great rapidity of action. I notice that in a recent article so great an authority as Sir Robert Hart, speaking of the Chinese, tells us that we may look for their rehabilitation against Europe to a period removed from our own by one or two centuries. That is the kind of attitude of mind which the Chinese adopt in all their operations, and undoubtedly when the Concert have to deal with the Chinese they must expect very great delay. I do not think the sending of a special plenipotentiary to China would have hurried matters very-much. We have, very accomplished representatives there, as we have always had. I might appeal again to Sir Robert Hart's authority on the same matter. I do not believe that a mere change of personnel of the kind advocated by the hon. Gentleman opposite would have made any great difference. Certain progress has been made, though, as I have said, it is very slow. In the first place we have arrived at a complete understanding as to the joint Note. It is a long document involving thirteen or fourteen separate heads, all of which had to be a matter of diplomatic discussion and decision.
I need not trouble the House any more on the question of the punishment of the Chinese offenders of which I spoke on Friday night. We have other subjects touched on in the Note. In the first place there is the question of indemnities. On the question of indemnities our representative has been instructed to gather together the various claims which may be made against the Chinese Government and classify them. Now,
372
these claims may be divided into two classes. There are the claims of individuals and the national claims—the claims of the different Powers, against China. I would rather not say anything at this moment about the individual claims; but, with regard to the claims which the Powers have and especially the claim which England has against China, I am inclined to think there is a measure of agreement between His Majesty's Government and the hon. Gentleman opposite and those who agree with him. After all, we are the injured parties; not the Chinese. We have suffered great wrong in the outrages which have been executed against our fellow-subjects or our representatives, and it would be a very indifferent compensation for our injuries if we added to those injuries the great further injury of so crippling Chinese finance as to damage our own trade. The Government occupy that point of view just as much as the hon. Gentleman does, and in the consideration of the amount of indemnity which we shall claim against China that matter will be carefully borne in mind. The indemnities, in our opinion, are relatively unimportant compared to our trade interests. What have we done for trade? In the first place, we have gone a long way, although our task is still very far from being complete, to restore a measure of tranquillity in China. I neither suggest that we have gone the whole way which we may hope to go nor that in any case we can hope that for many years it shall be complete, for in many parts of China the condition of unrest is chronic. Still, a great deal may be done, and considerable steps have been taken in the, last few months towards a restoration of tranquillity. As hon. Gentlemen have said in this House and elsewhere, that is not sufficient. We do not look merely to restoring the old state of tranquillity, but if possible to improving on the present commercial system in China, so that it shall be advantageous to her and ourselves. I think the House will realise that the, subject of such reforms will necessarily lead to prolonged negotiations. There may be some reason, I am afraid, to complain of the long delay that may take place. The Government

373
of China is, as everyone knows, divided into great provinces, autonomous in character, with important officials called Viceroys at their head; and in any general scheme of commercial or fiscal reform there is no question that every one of these provincial administrations will have to be consulted, and that the time occupied must necessarily be, when we consider Chinese methods, very prolonged. I am afraid that the same reflection occurs when I turn from the general to the particular, and consider the kind of matters in which reform is specially called for.
Now, Sir, as everybody knows, as the hon. Gentleman himself told us on Friday night, the greatest region in which fiscal reform ought to take place is in respect of what is called the likin, or the interior customs of China. It is very widely extended. It employs an enormous number of officials in all parts of China—high officials, low officials of all sorts, all of whom have got vested interests of a very substantial kind in the institution of likin, which will therefore require great care and considerable time in its reform. It would be so even if it existed in this country; more so out there. That the evils connected with likin are very great I do not think anybody can doubt. I was struck the other day by some figures which showed that in the case of one particular province one levy, that is to say the passing of one barrier, taxed the goods to the extent of 18 per cent. ad valorem. There are often as much as two or more levies before the goods arrive at their destination. Of course, as the House will understand, I am putting an extreme case. It is a case I have on good authority, and I have no doubt it is a fact. The House will know, as a matter of treaty law, that this particular impost can be franchised by a payment of 2½ per cent. at the coast. I think I have given you some idea of how extremely divergent the actual practice is from that which English merchants have a treaty right to demand. The reasons, of course, are obvious—that the whole of the revenues by which the government of these provinces is carried on really depend on likin. The money which is paid in view of the duties at the coast does not reach the provincial
374
treasuries at all. Unless they impose likin they have no means of paying their public service or transacting the ordinary business of government. Add to that corruption; there is any amount, I need not say, of that article in China. The explanation is obvious.
I have said this much because I wanted the House to understand that His Majesty's Government are fully seised of both the importance and the difficulties of commercial reform in China, that they have the subject very prominently before their minds, and that they very carefully consider what ought to be done and what can be done. If I may say so, I want to make the House understand how immensely complicated the matter is, and what great delay one must necessarily expect before anything like reform, even to a moderate extent, can be carried out. The hon. Gentleman asked me about certain other matters. He asked me about the waterways. That matter is being considered, but I can say nothing more about it for the present. Then he spoke of removing the obstructions to navigation. There, I think, he made a very good, practical suggestion, a suggestion which the Government are carefully considering. And then there was something he said about the necessity of giving the Chinese Government the right to re-enter upon their railways, if that should seem to be necessary in their own interests. I believe, although it is not a matter which I have gone into very carefully, that in most of the railway agreements such a power is reserved to the Chinese Government.
I will just say a word or two about the very great difficulties in respect of one railway. I speak, of course, of the railway from Tien-tsin to Shan-hai-kwan. There is no doubt that the state of things which has existed with respect to that railway and the occurrences which have taken place there have given His Majesty's Government ground for very great anxiety. The railway was occupied by the Russians, so far as we are aware, without any authority to do so and in the course of their operations they undoubtedly did take into their charge a large amount of railway material at Niu-chwang belonging to a British

375
company, which, I think, there is no I question was not part of their own property. These things happened in respect of a railway which had been made by British capital, which had been worked by British skill, where, that is to say, our interests were of the most important and immediate character.
In considering what line we ought to take on this matter, three objects were before us—first of all, the restoration of the railway, which was important in every respect from a commercial point of view; secondly, the rights of our own countrymen; and, lastly, the great importance of maintaining the friendly alliance of the Great Powers of Europe with regard to the Chinese question. We thought it well to proceed not by way of polemical utterance, but by way of friendly representation to the Russian Government. I am glad to say that those representations have met with a large measure of success. In the first place, the Russian Government assured us, and assure us now, in the most categorical manner, that the occupation of the railway was purely a temporary occupation, dictated by the military considerations of the moment; and, in the second place, they promised to restore the railway material and have restored it. I am bound to say that in all our dealings in this matter with the Russian Government we have been received in a most friendly way, and we have no complaint whatever to make of the attitude of the Government of the Russian Emperor. Sometimes one cannot help regretting that the undoubtedly benevolent intentions of the Russian Government are not so rapidly carried out by their officers in distant provinces as we have some right to expect, but that their intentions in this matter are perfectly sound and thoroughly friendly to this country I, for one, do not doubt. Notwithstanding the great importance of the question involved, when once it is approached in that spirit by the two Governments, when it is explained in the most friendly terms that the occupation is only of a temporary character, even if in some respects we do not agree with the line the Russian Government have taken, nothing removes the controversy from the domain of purely friendly negotiation. Therefore, relying on these assurances, I think
376
the House may have its anxiety with regard to the railway to some extent relieved.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I would like to ask a question of the noble Lord. In speaking of the railway from Tien-tsin to Shan-hai-kwan, did he intend the House to understand that his observations also applied to the railway from Shan-hai-kwan to Niu-chwang? We have heard nothing of the determination of the Russian Government to hand over that railway either to the British or the Germans.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I assure the hon. Gentleman I am too much impressed with the importance and delicacy of the question with which I am dealing to make any mistake as to the names of the particular branches of the railway involved. As to the railway north of the Great Wall, we understand, on the same high assurances, that the occupation is merely of a temporary character. While assenting for the moment on military grounds to the present occupation, we have reserved our full political and financial rights.
I turn for a moment to speak of Manchuria. Rumours have reached us of proceedings of the Russians with respect to Manchuria. We made proper inquiry from our representative, and he assured us that any agreement which exists between Russia and China in respect to Manchuria is in the nature of a modus vivendi, consisting merely in the simultaneous presence of the Russian and Chinese forces in Manchuria, in order to prevent disturbances on their frontier. He assured us that the occupation of the railway is of a purely temporary character, and that, although a guarantee is expected by the Russian Government that upon their withdrawal the disturbances shall not break out again, yet that guarantee will not take the form of an acquisition of territory or of a virtual or actual protectorate in Manchuria. The hon. Member for St. Paneras asked me on Friday night a question in respect to Niu-chwang. A great deal has been said about Niu-chwang, which, as the House knows, is a treaty port; but I hope the House will abstain from language of exaggeration in regard

377
to that place. I told the House during a former sitting that Niu-chwang had been occupied by the Russians on the ground of military necessity; but I am able to say, upon very good authority, that since then, although Niu-chwang is nominally under Russian martial law, the Russians do not interfere, but people are allowed to settle their own differences if they like. As a matter of fact the private rights of the foreign community do not appear to have been interfered with to any extent. In respect to Niu-chwang we have received assurances at least equal to those which have been given us in respect to the province of South Manchuria. We understand the Russians are prepared to restore Niu-chwang at the end of their occupation precisely to its former condition. I do not think that after what I have been able to say to the House on the present occasion any Member will assert that the Government's diplomacy in this matter has not been active. On Friday night I said that it has not been aggressive. We have borne in mind the enormous importance of the British interests in China, and have not forgotten that it is our duty to make representations when we think those interests are in any degree threatened. I earnestly hope the House will recognise not only that the Government have been active, but that I have already taken to heart the lesson read to me an hour or two ago about the anxiety of the House of Commons for information, and that I have done my best to give information in some detail. In pursuit of our policy, which is neither aggressive nor ostentatious, we ask the support of the House of Commons, and beg them to rely on the fact that we shall neither lose sight of the importance of maintaining British interests nor of preserving the peace of the world.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sure the House has heard with satisfaction the very frank and able statement made by the noble Lord. I had not intended to trouble the House to-day; I should have been very glad to have left the discussion of this subject in the able hands of my hon. friend the Member for Barnsley, and I was very pleased to
378
hear from the noble Lord that on many points he agrees with the view of my hon. friend; but there is one point which has led me to desire to ask further explanation from the Government.
I desire to remind the House of the words used by the noble Lord on Friday last. There is a most critical question for this country, for the House of Commons, and for the Government, and that is to know what is our military position at this moment in China, and what is the military policy of the Government in that country. The noble Lord said, and I remarked his words with satisfaction, that—
"in pressing these punishments on the Chinese Government we had to be clear that we should not commit ourselves in such a way as to lose control over our own conduct. It was suggested, for example, that in order to enforce the wishes of Great Britain, or other members of the allied Powers, on the Chinese Government an expedition should be taken into the interior of China of a warlike character. That, I think, would have been a most disastrous policy."
I think everyone will agree with the noble Lord that that would be a disastrous policy. Well, Sir, that was the position of the Government on Friday night; but this morning, within a few hours of that statement, another statement has come from China, which is enforced with all the authority of a leading article in The Times, founded on their correspondent's information. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord has made no allusion to that information, and has not told us whether it is well founded or not. This is the statement put forward, that—
"on the next day [that is, on Saturday] Count von Waldersee issued a general order to the troops under his command directing them to make ready to take the field, the idea being to make a march into the interior in the spring."
Now it is of the deepest concern to this country to know whether that statement is true, and how far the British Government are committed to the policy indicated by such an order as that First of all, I ask, is that statement true? I would ask a second question—I will put a supplementary question—and that is, if that statement is true, has such an order as that been given without consultation with the British Government; and have the Government taken

379
any measures to ascertain the facts with reference to such an order, or will they oso? I wish also to ask whether they have intimated that they will be no parties and give no consent to a policy which the noble Lord has properly declared to be disastrous and objectionable.
There is another matter upon which I do not think we have ever had a proper statement in this House. What is our military position in China as regards the action of ourselves and other Powers? We know that Count von Waldersee has been accepted as General-in-Chief of the armies out there; but would a general order of the kind he has said to have issued apply to all the military forces in China or only to the troops of his own nationality? I want to know whether a general order of that kind would operate upon the British forces out there. And now I come to ask another question which lies at the root of the whole thing. Is it within the purview of the concert of Europe that one Power should make a military expedition into the interior of China without the co-operation and consent of the other Powers? That is a most critical question with reference to the whole future of China. I will not at present enter further into the discussion of this matter, because I am glad to know that His Majesty's Government are opposed to this policy: but I wish to have some assurance as to the situation in which we stand with reference to other Powers, and especially with reference to the action of a single Power without the co-operation of the others. These are most critical questions. We know how easily, without the desire, almost without the knowledge, of the Government we may be committed to some disastrous policy and to some more disastrous war. When you once begin a policy of this kind you may find yourselves embarked in another guerilla war, and in that guerilla war it will be well to remember that the population of China is more numerous even than that of the Boers. Therefore it is a matter of the most critical importance that the House of Commons and the country should have their eyes open to the dangers of the situation, and that before we go into our military Estimates, we should know
380
what is our military position in China. Quite apart from questions of policy, there is for us, at least, a ruling consideration: that we have exhausted our military power in South Africa.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Not nearly.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Of course the hon. Member is always ready to go himself. But what did we hear from the Secretary of State for India to-night? He told us the numbers by which our forces in India have been depleted. The hon. Member is always in terror of Russia attacking India. What does he think of the statement of the Secretary for State? We know perfectly well that you have got almost to the very last man in this country and the colonies, and you cannot afford another guerilla war. That is the situation in which we stand, and we should proceed with prudence at least.
I was very glad to hear the language of the noble Lord as to the relations of this country with Russia. He did not pander to the desire to inflame the animosity of nations. He said the Government has dealt with this Chinese question in a spirit of friendly negotiation with Russia, and you may depend upon it that this question cannot be solved without the greatest disaster unless this country is acting in friendly and reasonable co-operation with Russia, who has so many thousand miles of frontier conterminous with China, where your fleet cannot be and her armies can. Therefore, no Government with any sense of reason, caution, or prudence will ever deal with the Chinese question except in the spirit which I am glad to hear from the noble Lord governs the relations between this country and Russia. What I am thinking of at present is the danger which may occur from a want of a thorough understanding of our military position in China, and how far it may be compromised by the action of any of the other Powers. Therefore I have ventured to ask for some further information from the Government as to what are the commitments and liabilities we may incur in consequence of our military situation in China
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I shall, with the leave of the House, reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I have to say with regard to the question he has put that, so far as we are aware, there is no foreign Government wanting to make an expedition into the interior of China, and I need not say that if such were in contemplation, certainly our Commander would require the instructions of the Government before consenting to go. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will for give rue for saying that his speech illustrates the great difficulty of answering without notice a very large number of categorical questions.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The noble Lord will forgive me for saying that this is my only opportunity After to-day he will not be able to answer my question.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If the right hon. Gentleman will be so good as to revert to the much-abused method of putting questions on the Paper, I will endeavour to give a categorical reply to the several points that have been raised.
MR. WYLIE: Having already spoken on this subject in December, I shall confine my few remarks within as narrow limits as possible. Let me associate myself with the remarks that have fallen from my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire, with respect to the speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Nothing could better illustrate the unassailable position the Government occupies in connection with the question of China than this debate and previous debates in the House of Commons. During the elections sweeping statements wore made by Liberal orators as to the weakness and futility of the Government's policy in China, and when the House met in December, the hon. Member for Barnsley brought forward a strong Amendment to the Address dealing with this question, but from a comparison of that Amendment with this which he has now brought before the House,† it is
†The hon. Member for Barnsley had on the Paper notice of the following Amendment to the Address:—"And we humbly represent to your Majesty that it is essential that adequate
382
clear to me that his criticisms are being gradually reduced to the vanishing point. In addition to having withdrawn his Amendment, he has gone the length of congratulating the Government on having been able to preserve the concert of the Powers and to settle the basis of negotiations for concluding peace with the Chinese Government, and I am of opinion that the more the hon. Member realises the vast difficulties connected with the Chinese problem, and the more he becomes acquainted with what the Government has actually done to preserve the rights and privileges of British subjects in China the more will he be inclined to diminish criticism and to increase congratulations. I noted with pleasure that the hon. Member had entirely deleted that clause in his former Amendment which urged that no demand should be made on the Chinese Government for the punishment of Chinese officials which could not be equally imposed in the case of a European Power; but I regret very much that in the course of his speech he should have stated that his sympathies were entirely with the Chinese, that the rising of the Chinese was a patriotic rising, and that it was hypocrisy on the part of western civilisation to make a demand for the decapitation of Chinese princes and generals. The hon. Member should remember that those men whom he seeks in some measure to protect have been guilty, consciously guilty, not only of the
measures should be taken for the safeguarding of the vast commercial and political interests of the British Empire in China, and that in connection with the settlement following the recent hostilities reparation should be sought in increased facilities for trade rather than by a money indemnity."—This Amendment he did not move, for the reason stated at the commencement of his speech on 15th February. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member on 7th December, 1900, was as follows:—"And we humbly represent to your Majesty that it is essential that more adequate measures should be taken for the safeguarding of the vast commercial and political interests of the British Empire in China; and we further humbly submit that no demand should be made on the Chinese Government for the punishment of Chinese officials which would not be equally imposed in the case of a European Power, and also that reparation should be sought in increased facilities to trade rather than by a money indemnity."—For the discussion on this Amendment, see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxviii., page 303.

383
most flagrant breaches of international rights, but of treacheries and atrocities which have been perpetrated on the Christian population, both European and native. Many Europeans, and some natives, put themselves under the special protection of some of these officials, never for one moment doubting that their respect for international rights and treaties would cause them to use their influence on the side of justice and humanity, instead of which they used their position for the purpose of inflicting severe tortures, and often a lingering death, upon those who had sought protection, and whom they were bound to protect. I think that this House will support the action which has been taken by the British Government and by the allied Powers in insisting that condign punishment should be inflicted upon those cruel, treacherous, and cowardly miscreants, not for revenge, but for the purpose of preventing a repetition of such atrocities, and for the purpose of securing the safety of the Christian population in China, whether European or native, for all time coming.
There is one other point, and only one, to which I wish to refer at the present time. When I spoke in December last, I sought to impress upon the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that, in the settlement which is being made in China, it is of vital importance to arrange that all duties leviable on goods imported into China should be rigorously confined to the ports of entry, that they should there be levied under the superintendence of European officials, that they should be of sufficient amount to enable the Chinese Government properly to pay the officials, and to meet the purposes of administration, and that the likin, consisting of extortionate exactions which have been charged, and which have been the greatest hindrance to British commerce, should be absolutely and for ever abolished. I am very glad that the noble Lord the Under Secretary has shown us that the Government are fully aware of the importance of this question, and that they are taking every step to have such a measure included among the stipulations with the Chinese Government. In conclusion let me say that the mercantile community of this country especially feel much
384
satisfaction at the vigour and resolution with which the Government persevere in such well advised measures for the purpose of preserving the concert of the Bowers to secure peace in China, and of increasing all our commercial advantages in that country. I feel quite certain that the country will thoroughly acknowledge the good service which has been done to them in this important point.
MR. C. E. H. HOBHOUSE: I think the House of Commons and the Under Secretary of State are to be congratulated upon the moderate tendency of the speech to which we listened before dinner. The speech marks a very great advance upon anything the country has been told up to the present by any Minister as to the policy of the Government in China.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
MR. C. E. H. HOBHOUSE (continuing): The Under Secretary on Friday last said that the Opposition did not realise what was the avowed policy of the Government. That was not unnatural, because at that moment the Government had avowed no policy at all; the only policy with which we were acquainted was a policy of reticence and very great reluctance to have anything said about events in China, either in this House or in the country. But to-day the Under Secretary tells us, what we already knew, that there is an absolute right in the House of Commons to know all that was going on, and I am bound to say he did give us some information, which was certainly of a satisfactory kind. In the first place, he told us that the questions of indemnities, duties, the Shan-hai-kwan Railway, and Manchuria had obtained the lively interest of the Government. Not unnaturally, he tried to make out for the Government of which he is a member a position as strong as could be claimed for it; but I venture to say he took an unduly favourable estimate of the position of England in China at the present moment. The Chinese Government and people are peculiarly susceptible to what

385
may be called "prestige," and we have a means of getting to know the sort of estimation in which the Chinese Government and people hold this country and its Government just now. A proposal was made by the Chinese Government to send an envoy to offer their condolences to His Majesty upon the death of the late Queen. The envoy selected for this purpose was not a prince of the Imperial House; he was not even a person holding a distinguished position in the Chinese Government; he was what is called a Literary Chancellor—a position equal to that of a Viceroy. But the person deputed by the Chinese Government to offer to the German Emperor condolences for the murder of his envoy is not a Literary Chancellor—whatever that may be—but a prince of the highest rank. That is a very significant comment on the difference in the estimation in which the German Government and the British Government are held by the Chinese Government.
The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in support of the policy of the Government, and as a proof of the vigour and spirit of that policy, told us that they had been fortunate enough to propose language which was acceptable to all persons concerned with regard to the proposals made by the various Powers concerned to China. But that language has never been divulged to us; we are ignorant of the terms of the proposals. All we were told was that it was a proposal embodied under thirteen or fourteen heads, and, therefore, a very lengthy document. I think we have a right to be told something more than that. Nine months have elapsed since these disturbances began, and all we know is that the proposals of the Government are voluminous. The Under Secretary took credit to himself for what he told the House, but I think that what he did not tell us was even more marked. With regard to the Shan-hai-kwan Railway, he told us that it was occupied by the Russians without authority. What does he mean by that? If this railway was occupied by the Russian forces without the authority of the general officer commanding them or without the authority of the Government which commands that general officer, surely it would not have been very difficult to induce the
386
Russian Government to withdraw their forces at once, and it need not have been necessary to obtain the sanction or the consent not merely of the Russian Government, but of the German Government, and, as was finally revealed to us a day or two ago, of the Japanese Government, to the restoration of our own property to our own Government. We are not told the exact terms upon which this railway is eventually to be handed back. We are told that one part has already been handed back, but with regard to the other part the Under Secretary did not like to commit himself. But he did tell us that the Russian Government had what he called "taken charge of the rolling stock of this railway." What does that mean? If it means that they have commandeered for their own permanent use the rolling stock of this British company and British undertaking, surely we have a right to ask that they shall replace that rolling stock, or, at all events, refund the money it will cost the railway to restore it. With regard to this railway, the Under Secretary told us that he had the definite assurance of the Russian Government. But it is not the first time that we have had equally definite—
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I am not sure that I made myself quite clear. Not only have we the definite assurance of the Russian Government that they would evacuate it, but they have already done so, and have handed it over to the German Government, who are about to hand it over to us.
MR. C. E. H. HOBHOUSE: That is a rather roundabout way of getting hold of property which belongs to yourself. I suppose that this process was gone through in order to save the face of the Russian Government. But what I want to know is whether the other part of the railway, and also the rolling stock, are going to be handed back to us as well. Has the Under Secretary got permission from the German Government and from the Japanese Government to get this property back also, or has this been made a sort of saving clause by which the Russian Government are to recoup themselves the cost of repairing the railway, which they

387
did with the property of the railway company itself? The Under Secretary failed to explain how it is that other nations can at the present moment protect their commercial undertakings and their industrial concerns with much greater promptitude than the English Government. It is in the recollection of the country that we stopped a mail steamer and examined its cargo in Delagoa Bay during the disturbances in South Africa. We at once got from the German Government a Note couched in very grave terms. And that Note was not delivered in secret, as most of the communications of our Government are, but it was made public to the world that the German Government would stand no nonsense when industrial concerns were at stake. But we allow a whole railway, costing something like 2½ millions, to be taken from us by another nation and to be retained for a very long time, and eventually we go through a very prolonged process to get back our own property. It may be very satisfactory to get it back eventually, but the methods I venture to characterise as extremely unsatisfactory. With regard to Manchuria, the Under Secretary tells us that he has a guarantee. I did not gather whether that was a written or a verbal guarantee.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not think I said guarantee.
MR. C. E. H. HOBHOUSE: Well, an assurance. Is it a written or a verbal assurance that the occupation of Manchuria is a modrs vivendi under which order is to be restored? In the course of restoring order I gather that a great number of the Chinese officials have, as the noble Lord phrased it, "disappeared."
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No doubt it is my fault, but the hon. Gentleman is mixing up the question of Manchuria with some phrase which I dropped about Niu-chwang. As to Manchuria, we applied to our own representative at St. Petersburg, and it is on his information that I have made that statement to the House. As to Niu-chwang, I explained in detail that the state of things is not so serious as some hon. Gentlemen seem to imagine.
MR. C. E. H. HOBHOUSE: I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord, but I want to insist upon my point. Is that assurance that this modus vivendi is not an actual or a virtual protectorate a written or a verbal assurance '? Has it been communicated to our Ambassador in St. Petersburg in writing or by word of mouth, because unless it has been communicated in writing there is great danger that at some future date there may be representations by the Russian Government that our Ambassador misunderstood the tenour of the communication, and that the protectorate which undoubtedly has been established in Manchuria is not be to merely temporary but permanent. It is significant to note in this respect that both the great French newspapers, who are not unfriendly judges of the conduct and attitude of the Russian Government, have spoken of the tenure of Manchuria as an actual and virtual occupation of the country, in direct contradistinction to the assurance which the noble Lord has been so happy to receive. In regard to Manchuria, the noble Lord said on Friday night that with reference to trade in that country there was no exclusion at the present moment. That is naturally the case, because foreign merchandise is brought into Manchuria from America or Europe oversea. That condition of things cannot long obtain, because at no distant date Manchuria will be joined to the Russian Empire by a continuous line of railway. As soon as the necessity no longer exists it will be no longer necessary to keep the door open which is now left ajar; the door may be slammed at any moment upon the not unnatural ground that it is no longer necessary. Therefore, when the noble Lord tells us that exclusion of foreign merchandise does not exist in Manchuria, that answer may be sufficient for to-day, but I venture to say that it is not adequate for to-morrow. It may be impossible for the noble Lord to answer the various points I have endeavoured to raise. I remember that the President of the Local Government Board when addressing his constituents some months ago told them that in reference to China they must not ask too much from the Government. I venture to say that

389
that is a very unsatisfactory answer, coming from a member of the Ministry, upon a question so important as this. We do not ask too much of the noble Lord and the Government, but we do ask that full consideration of the trade and interests, whether commercial or political, of this country shall be given by the Government, and we have some indication—and I venture to congratulate the noble Lord upon it—that these matters have not altogether slipped from his memory.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I wish to address myself to the Report of the Commission upon the Army Medical Corps in South Africa. I think everyone will admit that that Report has not succeeded in satisfying the expectation of those who desired its appointment. No one desired that an unmeasured amount of blame should be cast upon the heads of the Army Medical Department, but it was intended that more impartial and non-departmental evidence should be thoroughly examined into. I think it will be admitted that there has not been a sufficient amount of entirely unbiased and disinterested inquiry into the subject. Official views have invariably been given greater weight to than non-official. The Commission seems to have followed the example set by many others, and its Report condemns and yet seeks for excuses, it blames and yet exculpates, it complains and yet praises. Reading between the lines, it seems as though the Commissioners were fully conscious that there had been a great deal of blundering and mismanagement, and yet they were most unwilling to fix the responsibility, and where in any case they felt obliged to do so, they proceed to find extenuating circumstances. Whichever way one looks at the Report, I think anyone will admit that a most lamentable state of affairs is palpably disclosed, and the whole consideration of the case seems to fall naturally under three headings: (1) the staff of the Royal Army Medical Corps, (2) their methods of management, and (3) the question of their position in time of war with respect to the difficulties of transport and responsibility. The provision of transport has been made in such a manner as to make the efficiency of
390
this department totally inadequate. I think it will be admitted that in the first place the personnel is woefully deficient, certainly in numbers, and it is to be feared, in many cases, in the special medical and surgical knowledge which is absolutely necessary for a staff of that kind which has to deal with large bodies of men employed in the field fighting against an enemy. Leaving aside the question of an increase of the employment of nurses—although it seems to be generally agreed that there was room for many more even at the base hospitals—there is no doubt that there were not enough surgeons employed. And what is the reason of this? I think the reason is to be found in the fact that the Royal Army Medical Corps is most unpopular amongst medical students as compared with the Navy, for in the Navy any number of surgeons can be obtained, whereas it is impossible to get enough to serve in the Army. Long before the war began it is a fact that the War Department went to all the schools of medical science in the country and begged for surgeons. There were then; more vacancies than applicants, competition was reduced to an absolute farce, and the Army Medical Department were compelled to take on anybody who could be induced to go out to South Africa. This state of things does not exist in the Navy, which is a most popular service with medical men, and therefore there must be something radically wrong.
I think that the only remedy that we can hope for is the appointment of a strong Committee, consisting of representatives from both sides of the House, which should at least contain one or two men from the younger members of the teaching staffs of our medical schools, and this committee should have full power to examine all these questions on oath. It should have the widest scope of inquiry, and be allowed to suggest practical remedies. A remedy is urgent, and should be found with as little delay as possible. There is no need to wait till the war is over. This Department was in a state of chaos before the war, and I think that its working during the last eighteen months has exposed its inefficiency to the whole world. I think everyone will admit that with-

391
out the help of the civil surgeons our position would have been perfectly hopeless. Here we have established at a moment's notice one of the very finest volunteer forces that the country could wish for. Why should it be done away with even at the end of the war? It is possible to establish a really efficient Army Medical Reserve.
I would suggest a plan on these lines: that young surgeons having no practice to go to immediately after passing their examinations might be induced, by paying them a certain amount per annum—say, for a year or eighteen months—to join a course of instruction which would fit them for the Army. Let them study military surgery and sanitation, and then join the Reserve. I would suggest that they be paid so much for the first five years, and that the country should have a call upon them for their services should occasion arise. They might be called upon to give a month every year for training for manœuvres for five years, and then be under an obligation to do service in some Volunteer medical corps, with liability to volunteer for home service for ten years. You would then have a body of men capable of fulfilling the duties which an ordinary medical training does not I give to the surgeon who is called upon at the present time to serve in the field. If this were done, we should get an efficient corps of medical men, in case of emergency, to fill the places of those civil surgeons who are now in South Africa, and whose training is not what it ought to be. Such officers would always possess the merit of being up to date in medical and sanitary science. It always has been and is now a great complaint among the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps that they can seldom get leave to go and study any new systems and processes at the great hospitals in times of peace. They are afforded no opportunity by which they can make themselves proficient. I think an arrangement could be made by which our troops at home could be treated in our hospitals in times of peace, and some of the senior medical officers might join the hospital staff. This, at any rate, would keep them up to their work, preserve the connection with their profession, and save a large amount of money to the
392
nation. One of the most necessary things we shall undoubtedly have to do in the future is to procure and attract a larger number of recruits for service in the Army. To accomplish this successfully you must provide proper treatment for those men in sickness and when wounded, and, unless more care is taken by a court of inquiry than has been taken by the one which has just reported, I am afraid it will militate against the enlistment of many soldiers who would have joined the Army if proper medical treatment was assured. Unless you provide for the alleviation of suffering at the same time, you cannot hope to enlist sympathy for the service which has so woefully broken down in its administration. The country does not blame the Government for its work in South Africa, but what it will demand in the future is that we should put the whole thing on a proper, sound basis; and unless we provide an efficient medical staff for our Army I am quite confident that the country will think that this Parliament has been lacking in its duty.
MR. J. P. PARRELL: I desire to draw the attention of the House to what I consider the omissions in which there is practically no reference to the country which Gentlemen on these benches represent in this House. I certainly think that His Majesty's advisers did not do their duty towards their Sovereign in recommending that he should be asked to take the formal Oath which was administered to him at the opening of this session of Parliament. That Oath, I think, can be regarded in no other light by hon. Gentlemen on these benches than as an insult of a very gross character to the religion they profess. In fact, I think that even amongst supporters of His Majesty's Government who profess that religion it was a very great straining of their allegiance to ask them to stand by and hear the tenets which they hold as more sacred than any other in this world described in terms of opprobrium and reproach. I learn that the coronation ceremony of His Majesty is to be deferred for nearly a year, and I trust that better counsels will prevail between this and that event, and that we shall have this most reproachful declaration concerning on

393
religion eliminated from the coronation ceremony of the King of this country.
On these benches we also feel a great disappointment as to the terms of His Majesty's Address to Parliament. I said at the beginning that my complaint was more in regard to what was omitted than for any promise given in that Speech. We have been promised a measure to facilitate the purchase of land in Ireland. I believe it is nearly fourteen years since this process of facilitating the purchase of land in Ireland was first instituted. I think the Ashbourne Act was passed about 1885, and other Acts have been since passed for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of land from the landlords to the tenants in Ireland. But in spite of all the machinery that you have set up for this purpose by Acts passed in this House, you have practically only touched the fringe of the settlement of the land question in Ireland. Out of 600,000 occupying tenants who hold land from landlords in Ireland—although these Land Acts have been fifteen years in operation—barely 50,000 have become owners of their own homesteads, and that has been done Tinder conditions as favourable as any which can be contemplated in the future in any Act or Bill of a, voluntary nature to be brought forward by this House. We are told now that the Government are to introduce a Bill of a voluntary nature which will leave things practically as they are, but which will, to some extent, facilitate the operations of the 40th section of the Act of 1896. Perhaps it is an act of supererogation to repeat from these benches that we wish His Majesty's Government to know once and for all that the only possible settlement of this question is to be attained not by tinkering at it with these voluntary measures or by introducing measures to smooth legal difficulties, but by passing a comprehensive and statesmanlike measure for compulsory laud purchase for the benefit of the people of Ireland. In a few days this House will be called upon to consider the operation of these Acts by an Amendment to the Address before the House. It is very little short of a farce upon the carrying out of the law when we remember the way in which the head Land Commission and the Sub-Commission
394
conduct the business of the country in Ireland. The head Land Commission consists of such refined gentlemen that they cannot condescend to visit towns like Longford where most of the business of the Commission lies, and they insist upon the unfortunate litigants, who have little money to spend, bringing up their witnesses and solicitors to Dublin for the purpose of having their cases tried. They shall hear more of this question in the immediate future.
My principal object in standing up this evening is to express the feeling of disappointment which I feel at the in action of the Government in regard to what may be called the social ills of Ireland. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has been touring extensively in the west of Ireland, and I do hope that some good will come from the enlightenment which this travelling will confer upon him. I do think that the Government can do everything that is needful for the condition of Ireland, but they are sadly lacking in seizing the golden opportunity of once and for all settling the great and complex question of the land in Ireland. Neither landlord nor tenant is satisfied with the present state of things, and to no person in that country has the present tribunal given satisfaction. We in this House are called upon from time to time to vote large sums of money for the expenses of this Commission. We are called upon to find indirectly expenses which are kept up for the purpose of carrying on the work of this Commission. I must say that I think to a very large extent the money which has been poured out for that purpose has been wasted, and it is money which, if it had been capitalised and utilised for the direct transference of land instead of being used through these legal channels, would have been much more efficiently applied. There are a great number of gentlemen upon the Commission whose only qualification is that they have served their time in the rent office of some great landlord. It is expecting too much of the tenant farmers of Ireland to expect that they can have confidence in a Commission so constituted, or to expect that the training which these gentlemen

395
have received could otherwise than bias them in the interest of the landlords whom they formerly served.
I do not wish to occupy the time of the House at any great length, but before I sit down I desire to associate myself as fully as possible with the remarks of my colleagues sitting on these benches as regards the war in South Africa. I have heard speeches from the opposite side of the House commenting in anything but favourable terms upon the manner in which the war has been conducted. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, in a mild way, deprecated the manner in which the medical staff, sent out to look after the wounded in this unfortunate war, have done their duty in attending to the sick and wounded. I confess that I have very little sympathy with Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, because what we find is that although they mildly deprecate these errors or mistakes, when it becomes a question of supporting the policy of the war they are invariably found in the Government lobby. This war question with us is one of pounds, shillings, and pence. We who represent the Irish people here have protested, so far as it lies in our power, against this war. From time to time, and on every possible occasion, we have raised our voices in solemn protest and warning against the war, but although our constitutional voice has been so expressed, the solid fact stares us in the face that every pound of extra taxation which you put on this kingdom will have to be borne in its proportion, and in its over proportion, by the already overtaxed people of Ireland. We have been complaining here session after session of your treatment of us in the matter of taxation. We have complained time after time fruitlessly that you are overtaxing us under ordinary conditions to the extent of -between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 per annum. When this war started we were told that it was to be over in two or three months, and I recollect that your first Vote was for £10,000,000, which was supposed to be ample for the purpose of concluding the war. Since then what have we seen? Since then the Secretary of State for War and other Ministers have come down here and Asked for millions in addition, and at
396
the end of last session you had drawn no less than £63,000,000 to carry on a war which you told this House would not cost more than £10,000,000. What is the state of things with which this country now finds itself face to face? Is it not a, fact that there are already preparations going on to bring before this House demands for the enormous sum of £70,000,000 to finish this war, and out of this enormous sum of £113,000,000 Ireland will be called upon to pay her proportion. Notwithstanding that Ireland has protested all along through her constitutional representatives against the war on grounds of humanity and justice, she will nevertheless be called upon and forced to pay to the extent of one-eleventh of that large sum. I say that as we find ourselves circumstanced at present, it is almost a farce to require the attendance of representatives from Ireland at the opening of Parliament, because you ignore our constitutional voice when it is raised, and you compel us to bear more than our just share of the burden which you have imposed upon us against our will. On grounds of humanity we have also opposed this war. I was reading in some of the Irish local papers letters from some of your own officers complaining of house-burning and of driving practically to utter starvation and destitution women and children in South Africa who were unable to resist your soldiery. You have, I think, some reason to find cause for pause in the present course to which you have set yourselves. This is a. huge and a mighty Empire. It is your boast that the sun never sets upon it. I daresay that if such things as newspapers were printed in the days of Julius Caesar and the Roman Emperors, they might have said that the great Roman Empire of their day was a great commercial Empire, and that it was utterly impossible that it could be overturned. But the more wealth accumulated, the more corrupt did its ruling classes become, and the more certain and terrible was the day of retribution which overtook it for the liberation of mankind. I say, as a humble Member of Parliament, that as this happened to the great Roman Empire, have a care that it does not also take place with the British Empire.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like to support what has fallen from my hon. friend behind me in regard to one point. It is one satisfactory feature in connection with the debates in South Africa that no one seems to have got a good word for the Government. Whether they approve of or condemn the war, they are all agreed on this one point: that the Government have made every possible blunder they could make from any and every point of view. In every sort of case with a legitimate grievance to redress, with every demand for the extension of freedom in the Transvaal, the Government have so conducted the controversy as to have ranged against them every friend of freedom throughout the world, outside Great Britain. And when you come to the war itself, though they have the resources of the wealthiest Empire which the world has ever seen to draw upon, they have so directed their operations that their own soldiers have been half-starved, stricken by disease, and have died by thousands from the sheer lack of the simplest appliances. Who could say a good word for a Government responsible for such a terrible position of affairs?
But there is some difficulty for anyone, especially for one who takes the view which I do of the war, in criticising this Government. Whatever we may say is misconstrued. We are said to be encouraging the Boers. [Ministerial cheers.] I observe that that statement is accepted by hon. Members on the other side of the House. But let me ask, has anything been said by any Member on this side of the House which tends to encourage the Boers half as much as some of the things I have heard from Unionist Members, and which I have seen in the Unionist press? I suppose that the same canons of interpretation will be applied to the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War as are applied to our speeches. Take, for instance, the pessimistic speech of the Prime Minister. We are told that the Boers read our speeches and conduct their campaigns accordingly; but if so, they also read the speeches of the Prime Minister, who has said to them: "Do not be disheartened; we have only been
398
sixteen months in trying to subdue you, whereas the Confederates in America held out for four years." Therefore, the Boers say, "Let us take heart of grace and go on; we are only just beginning." But the Secretary for War says, "I can go one better. It took the North four years, indeed, to conquer the Confederates, but what about Spain and the Cubans? The Cubans were half-castes, they had nothing like your equipment—you have the best equipped army imaginable—and they did not conduct their campaign half so skilfully as you. Yet with only 30,000 troops they held out for ten years against the Spaniards with 250,000 troops. So do not be discouraged." And what about the Unionist press? If anything appears in the Liberal press favourable to the Boers it is said "What a wild, traitorous press it is!" But take what I have seen in respectable, patriotic journals in London. They have within the past few weeks been pointing out, that our troops are war-worn, jaded, and with no fight left in them. Really it is time that high-minded patriots began to work up indignant fury against the violent pro-Boer utterances of the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War. And really I do not know what the Colonial Secretary is about. What has he been doing? He has fulminated against the Stop-the-War party, and yet he has talked about terms of peace and fair and generous treatment. Why, these are the shibboleths of pro-Boerism, as I understand it. We dare not refer to these without being told that we are encouraging the Boers. Why should the Colonial Secretary refer to them? He has played many parts in his time. He has joined every party. Is it possible that he is going to crown his career by once more returning to the pro-Boer party, of which he was the most shining and conspicuous ornament? Really this pro-Boerism which is developing on the other side is most lamentable: and it is ime we should eradicate it!
After all, which is the more likely to encourage the Boers, and to afford them an incentive to desperate fighting—the knowledge that there are men who are prepared to plead for their fair and generous treatment, or the knowledge conveyed to them by the Prime

399
Minister, the Secretary for War, and others, of what they are to expect if they surrender? What is it? "Not a shred of independence." More than that, "we are to be masters" and they are to be servants. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] Well, if one man is master, somebody must be servant. More than that, the Estimates provide for a vote by Parliament for placing 15,000 Imperial Yeoman as settlers on Boer farms. Is it likely to induce the Boers to come to terms? But after all we are delighted to see right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side beginning to discuss the possibility of terms—just what we have been urging for many months past. I think the opinion of the country is that whatever the blunder of going to war was, the still greater blunder was not to have offered terms when we captured Pretoria. Then a great opportunity was lost, possibly for ever. But what are the terms which are offered? There is no substantial difference, as I understand, between the two sides of the House as to what should constitute the ultimate terms of settlement. You say, "Give them the fullest measure of autonomy, of the right to govern their own affairs in their own country. "The right hon. the Colonial Secretary said," Yes, that is my view as well; but in the meantime I will set up a Crown colony." Of course, once you beat the Boers, once you capture the last commando, you can dictate your own terms. But the question now is, what can be done to curtail the war, to avert and to stop this terrible bloodshed and waste of treasure meantime. Does anyone believe that the Boors will lay down their arms merely in order to be governed from Downing Street, upon an indefinite promise, with no time fixed, that at some time or other, when the Government for the time being think fit to do so, they will restore self-government to the Boers? What is the guarantee that that promise is to be carried out? Let us have perfect, open plain speaking about the matter. This is altogether a question of trust and confidence; the Boers have to lay down their arms, trusting in the words of the statesman who in this House said there was nothing dishonourable in a man
400
breaking into his neighbour's territory upon the strength of a letter which he or his confederates forged. Nothing dishonourable in that! If there is nothing dishonourable in that there is nothing dishonourable in breaking a pledge given to the Boers. I do not believe that they will trust any statesman who has laid that down as his canon of honour. But there is more than that. We gave this pledge to the Boers before—in 1852, and certainly in 1877. Then we made a solemn promise to the Boers that if their territory was annexed we would restore to them self-government, but we broke that pledge. We asked them to take the same promise again, and to lay down their arms and submit to us. Besides, ignorant as the Boers may be, they probably have heard of other countries where we promised to restore to their inhabitants self-government after a due interregnum. They are not so ignorant not to know that Egypt is in Africa, in the same continent as their own country; and what has happened there? We entered Egypt and occupied that territory on the most solemn assurances given not only to the people of Egypt, but to Europe, that we would restore to it self-government. [An HON. MEMBER: Mr. Gladstone.] Mr. Gladstone! Who was a member of Mr. Gladstone's Ministry which gave that assurance? The same right hon. Gentleman who is offering the same pledge-now, and the same right hon. Gentleman who has since advocated that we should stick to Egypt and break our former pledge. How can you expect the Boers, remembering all that, to trust to a bare pledge? One thing is certain: not the statesman who is responsible for that pledge, nor any other Member of this House will say that the Boers have not some reason to be suspicious and to doubt when we ask them to lay down their arms with the only security that they must trust absolutely to British faith in regard to what may happen in the future.
There is another reason why, at the present moment, it is exceedingly difficult to arrange peace with the Boers. The conduct of the war during the past six or nine months has exasperated them beyond measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.]

401
Hon. Members see nothing except what is matter for merriment in the burning of Boer homes and the turning of women and children into the wilderness! As long as that spirit remains I despair of any terms being made with the Boers. Some doubt has been cast on the statements made in regard to the burning of farms. The noble Lord who represents the War Office stated last week that the farm-burning had taken place as a punishment for treachery. There is no one here who is going to criticise that action if treachery is proved against the occupants of these farms. It may or may not be condign punishment; that is a matter which must be dealt with on the spot. At any rate, I am not going to challenge the burning of the houses of men guilty of such treachery; but I do criticise and censure the conduct of men who, for the treachery of others, burn the homes over their heads of people who are perfectly innocent. I am not going to quote anonymous letters. The first quotation I shall make will be from a proclamation by Lord Roberts himself, and if Lord Roberts has been misjudged, he himself has been to blame. We have been told that farms have only been burned in clear cases of treachery proved against the inhabitants. Proclamation No. 20 sets forth—
"Should any damage be done to any lines of railway or public works"—amongst other things that will happen will be this—"the houses and farms in the vicinity of the place where the damage is done will be destroyed, and the residents"—not those guilty of treachery—"in the neighbourhood dealt with under martial law."
Do hon. Members opposite approve of that? I will say to the credit of the noble Lord who spoke for the War Office that he did not. He has been to the front. He has seen what the horrors of war are, and he does not want to extend them. But I will prove from quotations from perfectly untainted sources that these farm-burning operations have been very extensive. This is what the Standard correspondent at Pretoria says, writing in November last—
"Half of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony is desolated with fire and sword. The farms are tenantless, and few crops will possibly be reaped this season. By the time resistance is finally stamped down—perhaps not by the end of February at the earliest—
402
the farming districts throughout the two States will, in all probability, be laid waste. This will mean famine and ruin to the Boers. They must see this, but they do not appear to care."
Another quotation I will give is from a Birmingham paper, and I need hardly say that this information must be unchallenged by the supporters of the Colonial Secretary—
"The charred and blackened country [this is a description of the country east of Bloemfontein] devastated by the red ruin of war has not a crumb for man, or blade of grass for cattle."
But let me give the authority of an hon. and gallant Member of this House who has been to the front, and who has fought in fifteen engagements—I mean the hon. and gallant Member for the Welsh constituency of South Glamorgan, and sits on the other side of the House. He says that he thought—
"the burning of the farms had been a fatal mistake. I believe but for these acts long ago we should have had the Boers surrendering. This burning and destroying is the gravest evil, and now the Boers who would have come in hate us as they never did before."
Then somebody suggested to him that it was done to punish treachery, but what is the answer given by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan? He says he does not object to the burning of farms under those conditions—certainly not. Where any farm is used as a fort it should be destroyed, but not otherwise. It is the burning of homesteads without cause to which he objects. Then he goes on and gives a rather pretty description of one of the houses partially burned. He went into the house, and on the wall saw a portrait of the Princess of Wales and the Queen. The old Boer to whom the house belonged took the portrait down, and said, "I thought she was a good woman; but if these are the things that are done in her name she is not," and he threw the portrait down and trampled on it. What the hon. Member for South Glamorgan describes are cases of farms being burnt, not for treachery, but without cause, simply carrying out Lord Roberts's proclamation. Another item of interest is that Lord Roberts sent a letter to the Commander-in-Chief of the Boer forces. What does he say in that

403
Letter? And I should also like to ask why it is that these letters are kept from the House of Commons? Why is information of this character withheld? I can understand information being withheld which by being published might act detrimentally to our troops in South Africa; but this information is in the hands of the Boers, and, therefore, cannot be detrimental to us. This is one of the many pieces of evidence that the House of Commons is treated disdainfully by the present responsible Ministers of the Crown. We had one instance of that to-day, and we had another instance last night. We vote the money, and, with all due deference, that is the only branch which represents the people in this country; and when we vote the money it is only right that we should know what is going to be done with it.
In the letter which Lord Roberts wrote to Commandant Botha, he complains that the railway has been cut—a peculiar complaint when we consider that the commander of the Boer forces is quite within his right to do everything in his power to embarrass the enemy opposed to him in the field. Lord Roberts says it is very wrong, and he is not going to allow it to go on any longer—that he is going to put a stop to it. But how is he going to do that? Not by capturing the men, but by burning every house within a radius of ten miles. [Cries of "No!"] What is the use of hon. Members saying "No," when I am quoting from the letter of Lord Roberts? Within a radius of ten miles all houses are to be destroyed, because a Boer commander comes and blows up a culvert! [Government cheers.] I have read that this war was brutalising our people; I do not want better evidence of that fact than those cheers. I will just quote another letter, and I shall be curious to see whether hon. Members opposite cheer that. It is written by an officer in the Canadian force, Lieutenant Morrison, of Ottawa (who was mentioned in despatches for gallant conduct), of the march of General Smith-Dorrien's force through a part of the Transvaal. Lieutenant Morrison said it was like the old-time forays in the Highlands of Scotland two centuries ago. He says—
"The country is very like Scotland, and we move from -valley to valley, lifting cattle and
404
sheep, burning and looting, and turning out women and children to weep in despair beside the ruin of their once beautiful homesteads. It was the first touch of Kitchener's iron hand, a terrible thing to witness, and I do not know that I want to see another trip of the sort."
Really brave men are revolted by this. Hon. Members do not cheer that—they are disgusted and shocked. But this is not all. He goes on to say how they burnt a track six miles wide right down to the village of Dilston. Not a word of this in despatches. Then, after a description of some of these houses, he comes to the sacking of Dilston, and he tells how it was burnt.
I really do not know why one should read this. It is a horrible account, and makes one ashamed that one's own countrymen could be guilty of such an action. It is war not against men, but against women and children. In that letter he describes fully the destruction of this town. I appeal to the humanity of hon. Members opposite—and I am sure they have it—do they approve of this? I am glad that at last they are silent, for the credit of the House of Commons. But there has been more burning of villages—not of isolated farms, but whole villages. They did not confine their burning to the neighbourhood of the railway, but ravaged the whole of the country. What happened to the town of Bothaville? There was a leading article in The Times, of which I can give the date, and which I can quote if necessary. In that article there is a, summary of the news of the day, which states that General Hunter marched from Bothaville to the railway, burning the farms on the way. Bothaville, the town, was burnt. The only reason why it was burnt, according to the telegrams, was because it was a storehouse for the Boers. The village of Ventersburg was also burnt for the same reason. In this connection I think the name of General Bruce Hamilton ought to be immortalised. After the burning of that village this general posted up the following proclamation—
"NOTICE.—The town of Ventersburg has been cleared of supplies, and partly burnt, and the, farms in the vicinity destroyed on account of the frequent attacks on the railway in the neighbourhood."
[Ministerial cheers.] Yes, but you cannot take both grounds: you cannot say

405
it was because of the treachery of those who occupied the farms, and also that it was because the railway was cut in the neighbourhood. [Ministerial cries of "Why not?"] I do not want to be drawn from the real point—
"The Boer women and children who are left behind"
—the supplies having been cleared out—
"should apply to the Boer commandants for food, who will supply them unless they wish to see them starve. No supplies will be sent from the railway to the town."
This meant that the Boer women and children were to starve, or were to remain there as a bait for the Boer commandoes, that we might capture them.
All that I can say is that this man is a brute, and a disgrace to the uniform he wears. Then there is a telegram that has come from the front, which has passed the censor, and which, therefore, must be correct. It came from Pretoria and said that the systematic gathering in of all Boer families and their stock in the outlying district was proceeding regularly and vigorously. At convenient centres Boer refugees, voluntary and other, were kept and fed. All those who surrendered voluntarily were given full rations. All the families whose husbands were on commando were put on a reduced scale. It would be increased to the full allowance if the husbands surrendered. That is what the telegram said, and hon. Members who cheer that would cheer anything. It means that unless the fathers came in their children would be half-starved. It means that the remnant of the Boer army who are sacrificing everything for their idea of independence are to be tortured by the spectacle of their starving children into betraying their cause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Will the hon. Gentleman kindly quote his authority for these statements he gives us?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will, certainly. It is a perfectly fair question. The telegram comes from Reuter's Agency, Pretoria, 15th January, and appears in The Times of 18th January.
MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Gentleman is trying to establish a charge for which he has not a particle of evidence.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: You challenge me to give my evidence. The whole of my evidence comes from Pretoria in a telegram from Pretoria; and no telegram can come from Pretoria that is objected to by the military censor there. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that a telegram which has the stamp of the military censor upon it is not a particle of evidence? [At this point Mr. CHAMBERLAIN walked out of the House.] [A VOICE: "There he goes!"and cries from the Irish benches of "Come back!"] The author of this is ashamed of his misdeeds.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: He flies the white flag.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not at all surprised; but repentance has come rather late in his case, after all this mischief has been done. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] If I am out of order there is an authority to call me to order, and if I have in any way transgressed I shall be only too willing to withdraw. It is difficult within the bounds of Parliamentary propriety to describe what one thinks about all this infamy which is perpetrated in the name of Great Britain in Africa. That is really what keeps us from coming to terms. We are in a. worse situation in South Africa than we were in twelve months ago. Not a third of the men we sent out to South Africa are now in the line of battle. There have been 55,000 casualties, 30,000 men are in hospital, and what do the papers say about the rest? Thoroughly jaded, worn, broken. Those are not my words, but those of correspondents writing from the front to Unionist papers. All the causes of death amongst our men which are classed by the law as the acts of God are increasing in intensity. It will be within the memory of many hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman in the first war session appealed to the God of Battles. He has got his answer. It is not the one he anticipated, but it is sufficiently terrible in all conscience to make hon. Members pause and reflect

407
whether they dare go on with this business.
ME. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I understood that the hon. Member to whose speech the House has just listened, had intended to move an Amendment to the Address. The text of the Amendment, which had appeared in the papers, was singularly mild and moderate in tone; but mild and moderate as it was, neither the hon. Member nor his political friends had cared to expose it to criticism or to challenge a division upon it, and, indeed, when we compare the moderation of the Amendment with the very bitter speech which the hon. Member has just delivered, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the moderation of the Amendment was the moderation of the hon. Member's political friends and leaders, and that the bitterness of his speech is all his own. It has been suggested to me that it might perhaps have been better, upon the whole, if the hon. Member, instead of making his speech without moving his Amendment, had moved his Amendment without making his speech. I would not complain of any remarks of the hon. Member were I called upon to do so. In my opinion, based upon the experience of the most famous men whose names have adorned the records of the House, no national emergency short, let us say, of the actual invasion of this country itself ought in any way to restrict or prevent the entire freedom of Parliamentary discussion. Moreover, I do not believe that the Boers would attach particular importance to the utterances of the hon. Member. No people in the world received so much verbal sympathy and so little practical support as the Boers. If I were a Boer fighting in the field—and if I were a Boer I hope I should be fighting in the field—I would not allow myself to be taken in by any message of sympathy, not even if it were signed by a hundred hon. Members. The hon. Member dwelt at great length upon the question of farm burning. I do not propose to discuss the ethics of farm burning now; but hon. Members should, I think, cast their eyes back to the fact that no considerations of humanity prevented the German army from throwing its shells into dwelling houses in Paris, and starving
408
the inhabitants of that great city to the extent that they had to live upon rats and like atrocious foods in order to compel the garrison to surrender. I venture to think His Majesty's Government would not have been justified in restricting their commanders in the field from any methods of warfare which are justified by precedents set by European and American generals during the last fifty or sixty years. I do not agree very fully with the charges of treachery on the one side and barbarity on the other. From what I saw of the war—and I sometimes saw something of it—I believe that as compared with other wars, especially those in which a civil population took part, this war in South Africa has been on the whole carried on with unusual humanity and generosity. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has drawn attention to the case of one general officer, and although I deprecate debates upon the characters of individual general officers who are serving the country at this moment, because I know personally General Bruce Hamilton, whom the hon. Member with admirable feeling described as General Brute Hamilton, I feel unable to address the House without offering my humble testimony to the fact that in all His Majesty's Army there are few men with better feeling, more kindness of heart, or with higher courage than General Bruce Hamilton.
There is a point of difference which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition upon the question of the policy to be pursued in South Africa after this war has been brought to a conclusion. So far as I have been able to make out the difference between the Government and the Opposition on this question is that whereas His Majesty's Government propose that when hostilities are brought to a conclusion there shall be an interval of civil government before full representative rights are extended to the peoples of these countries, on the other hand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition believes that these representative institutions will be more quickly obtained if the military government be prolonged as a temporary measure and no interval of civil government be interposed. I hope I am not misinterpreting

409
the right hon. Gentleman in any way. If I am, I trust he will not hesitate to correct me, because I should be very sorry in any way to misstate his views. If that is the situation, I will respectfully ask the House to allow me to examine these alternative propositions. I do not wish myself to lay down the law, or thrust my views upon hon. Members. I have travelled a good deal about South Africa during the last ten months under varying circumstances, and I should like to lay before the House some of the considerations which have been very forcibly borne in upon me during that period.
In the first place I would like to look back to the original cause for which we went to war. We went to war—I mean of course we were gone to war with—in connection with the extension of the franchise. We began negotiations with the Boers in order to extend the franchise to the people of the Transvaal. When I say the people of the Transvaal, I mean the whole people of the Transvaal, and not necessarily those who arrived there first. At that time there were nearly two and a-half times as many British and non-Dutch as there were Boers, but during the few weeks before the outbreak of the war every train was crowded with British subjects who were endeavouring to escape from the approaching conflict, and so it was that the Uitlanders were scattered all over the world. It seems to me that when the war is over we ought not to forget the original object with which we undertook the negotiations which led to the war. If I may lay down anything I would-ask the House to establish the principle that they ought not to extend any representative institutions to the people of the Transvaal until such time as the population has regained its ordinary level. What could be more dangerous, ridiculous or futile, than to throw the responsible government of a ruined country on that remnant of the population, that particular section of the population, which is actively hostile to the fundamental institutions of the State? I think there ought to be no doubt and no difference of opinion on the point that between the firing of the last shot and the casting of the first vote there must be an appreciable interval that must be filled by a government of some kind or another.
410
I invite the House to consider which form of government—civil government or military government—is most likely to be conducive to the restoration or the banished prosperity of the country and most likely to encourage the return of the population now scattered far and wide. I understand that there are hon. Members who are in hopes that representative institutions may directly follow military government, but I think they cannot realise thoroughly how very irksome such military government is. I have the greatest respect for British officers, and when I hear them attacked, as some hon. Members have done in their speeches, it makes me very sorry, and very angry too. Although I regard British officers in the field of war, and in dealing with native races, as the best officers in the world, I do not believe that either their training or their habits of thought qualify them to exercise arbitrary authority over civil populations of European race. I have often myself been very much ashamed to see respectable old Boer farmers—the Boer is a curious combination of the squire and the peasant, and under the rough coat of the farmer there are very often to be found the instincts of the squire—I have been ashamed to see such men ordered about peremptorily by young subaltern officers, as if they were private soldiers. I do not hesitate to say that as long as you have anything like direct military government there will be no revival of trade, no return of the Uitlander population, no influx of immigrants from other parts of the world—nothing but despair and discontent on the part of the Boer popuation, and growing resentment on the part of our own British settlers. If there was a system of civil government on the other hand, which I think we have an absolute moral right to establish if only from the fact that this country through the Imperial Exchequer will have to provide the money—if you had a civil government under such an administrator as Sir Alfred Milner—[Cries of "Hear, hear," and "Oh"]—it is not for me to eulogise that distinguished administrator, I am sure he enjoys the confidence of the whole of the Conservative party, and there are a great many Members on the other side of the House

411
who do not find it convenient in their own minds to disregard Sir Alfred Milner's deliberate opinion on South African affairs. As soon as it is known that there is in the Transvaal a government under which property and liberty are secure, so soon as it is known that in these countries one can live freely and safely, there would be a rush of immigrants from all parts of the world to develop the country and to profit by the great revival of trade which usually follows war of all kinds. If I may judge by my own experience there are many Members of this House who have received letters from their constituents asking whether it was advisable to go out to South Africa. When this policy of immigration is well advanced we shall again have the great majority of the people of the Transvaal firmly attached and devoted to the Imperial connection, and when you can extend representative institutions to them you will find them reposing securely upon the broad basis of the consent of the governed, while the rights of the minority will be effectively protected and preserved by the tactful and judicious intervention of the Imperial authority. May I say that it was this prospect of a loyal and Anglicised Transvaal turning of the scale in our favour in South Africa, which must have been the original "good hope" from which the Cape has taken its name.
It is not for me to criticise the proposals which come from such a distinguished authority as the Leader of the Opposition, but I find it impossible not to say that in comparing these two alternative plans one with the other I must proclaim my strong preference for the course His Majesty's Government propose to adopt. I pass now from the question of the ultimate settlement of the two late Republics to the immediate necessities of the situation. What ought to be the present policy of the Government? I take it that there is a pretty general consensus of opinion in this House that it ought to be to make it easy and honourable for the Boers to surrender, and painful and perilous for them to continue in the field. Let the Government proceed on both those lines concurrently and at full speed. I sympathise very heartily with my hon. friend
412
the senior Member for Oldham, who, in a speech delivered last year, showed great anxiety that everything should be done to make the Boers understand exactly what terms were offered to them, and I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will leave nothing undone to bring home to those brave and unhappy men who are fighting in the field that whenever they are prepared to recognise that their small independence must be merged in the larger liberties of the British Empire, there will be a full guarantee for the security of their property and religion, an assurance of equal rights, a promise of representative institutions, and last of all, but not least of all, what the British Army would most readily accord to a brave and enduring foe—all the honours of war. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be discouraged by any rebuffs which his envoys may meet with, but will persevere in endeavouring to bring before these people the conditions on which at any moment they may obtain peace and the friendship of Great Britain. Of course, we can only promise, and it rests with the Boers whether they will accept our conditions. They may refuse the generous terms offered them, and stand or fall by their old cry, "Death or independence!"[Nationalist cheers.] I do not see anything to rejoice at in that prospect, because if it be so, the war will enter upon a very sad and gloomy phase. If the Boers remain deaf to the voice of reason, and blind to the hand of friendship, if they refuse all overtures and disdain all terms, then, while we cannot help admiring their determination and endurance, we can only hope that our own race, in the pursuit of what they feel to be a righteous cause, will show determination as strong and endurance as lasting. It is wonderful that hon. Members who form the Irish party should find it in their hearts to speak and act as they do in regard to a war in which so much has been accomplished by the courage, the sacrifices, and, above all, by the military capacity of Irishmen. There is a practical reason, which I trust hon. Members will not think it presumptuous in me to bring to their notice, is that they would be well advised cordially

413
to co-operate with His Majesty's Government in bringing the war to a speedy conclusion, because they must know that no Irish question or agitation can possibly take any hold on the imagination of the people of Great Britain so long as all our thoughts are with the soldiers who are fighting in South Africa.
What are the military measures we ought to take? I have no doubt that other opportunities will be presented to the House to discuss them, but so far as I have been able to understand the whispers I have heard in the air there are, on the whole, considerable signs of possible improvement in the South African situation. There are appearances that the Boers are weakening, and that the desperate and feverish efforts they have made so long cannot be indefinitely sustained. If that be so, now is the time for the Government and the Army to redouble their efforts. It is incumbent on Members like myself, who represent large working class constituencies, to bring home to the Government the fact that the country does not want to count the cost of the war until it is won. I think we all rejoiced to see the announcement in the papers that 30,000 more mounted men were being despatched to South Africa. I cannot help noticing with intense satisfaction that, not content with sending large numbers of men, the Secretary of State for War has found some excellent Indian officers, prominent among whom is Sir Bindon Blood, who will go out to South Africa and bring their knowledge of guerilla warfare on the Indian frontier to bear on the peculiar kind of warfare—I will not call it guerilla warfare—now going on in South Africa. I shall always indulge the hope that, great as these preparations are, they will not be all, and that some fine afternoon the Secretary of State for War will come down to the House with a brand-new scheme, not only for sending all the reinforcements necessary for keeping the Army up to a fixed standard of 250,000 men, in spite of the losses by battle and disease, but also for increasing it by a regular monthly quota of 2,000 or 3,000 men, so that the Boers will be compelled, with ever-diminishing resources, to make head against ever.
414
increasing difficulties, and will not only be exposed to the beating of the waves, but to the force of the rising tide.
Some hon. Members have seen fit, either in this place or elsewhere, to stigmatise this war as a war of greed. I regret that I feel bound to repudiate that pleasant suggestion. If there were persons who rejoiced in this war, and went out with hopes of excitement or the lust of conflict, they have had enough and more than enough to-day. If, as the hon. Member for Northampton has several times suggested, certain capitalists spent money in bringing on this war in the hope that it would increase the value of their mining properties, they know now that they made an uncommonly bad bargain. With the mass of the nation, with the whole people of the country, this war from beginning to end has only been a war of duty. They believe, and they have shown in the most remarkable manner that they believe, that His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Secretary have throughout been actuated by the same high and patriotic motives. They know that no other inspiration could sustain and animate the Regulars and Volunteers, who through all these hard months have had to bear the brunt of the public contention. They may indeed have to regret, as I myself have, the loss of a great many good friends in the war. We cannot help feeling sorry for many of the incidents of the war, but for all that I do not find it possible on reflection to accuse the general policy which led to the war, we have no cause to be ashamed of anything that has passed during the war, nor have we any right to be doleful or lugubrious. I think if any hon. Members are feeling unhappy about the state of affairs in South Africa I would recommend them a receipt from which I myself derived much exhilaration. Let them look to the other great dependencies and colonies of the British Empire and see what the effect of the war has been therel Whatever we may have lost in doubtfu. friends in Cape Colony we have gained ten times, or perhaps twenty times, over in Canada and Australia, where the people—down to the humblest farmer in the most distant provinces—have by their effective participation in the conflict been able to realise, as they never

415
could realise before, that they belong to the Empire, and that the Empire belongs to them. I cannot sit down without saying how very grateful I am for the kindness and patience with which the House has heard me, and which have been extended to me, I well know, not on my own account, but because of a certain splendid memory which many hon. Members still preserve.
SIR EGBERT REID: I am sure the House is glad to recognise that the hon. Member who has just sat down possesses the same courage which so distinguished Lord Randolph Churchill dining his short and brilliant career in this House. I have listened with very great pleasure to the hon. Gentleman. There was much in what he said that I disagreed with, but I think the tone was different from what we some-times hear with reference to this most deplorable conflict. It has been a deplorable tragedy, for which this country is most bitterly suffering, and unless we can find some honourable means of putting an end to this sanguinary conflict, on terms consistent with the peace and welfare of this country. I am afraid that the sacrifices we have hitherto undergone will prove to be less than those we have still to undergo.
The hon. Gentleman said the Government should do all they can to make it easy for the Boers to surrender on fair and honourable terms. That is the feeling which I myself entertain, but I cannot help regretting that on more than one occasion those of us who have expressed that feeling from these benches received hard language from Gentlemen with whom the hon. Member is associated. There have been two stages in this war. The first stage ended with the capture of Bloemfontein and Pretoria. I believe that if at that time fair and honourable terms, consistent with the declared intention of the Government to maintain the British authority in these dominions, had been offered, the war would have ended almost after the capture of Bloemfontein. The Government made a demand for unconditional surrender, and the farm-burnings and other devastations were not, I believe, intended for the purpose, of cruelty, but have been undertaken through a mis-
416
taken military policy which I cannot help thinking has tended only to the exasperation of the inhabitants. From that time thousands more lives have been sacrificed, millions of money have been spent, Cape Colony is now largely under martial law, and we appear to be at this moment not so close to the end of the war as we were in June.
The question I wish to put to the House is this, is it not possible even now, by temperate counsels, to do something to abridge this horrible conflict? As the hon Gentleman said, the Boers have every inducement that men can have to make terms of peace, provided those terms are fair and honourable towards themselves. Their country has been largely ruined, and something like 60,000 of their women and children are in British custody. Is it not possible for the Government, without any loss of dignity, to do what the hon. Gentleman himself suggested, to communicate terms to the Boers such as men who are admittedly brave men, and who have carried out the war, as the hon. Gentleman said, in a spirit of generosity as well as of courage, might be entitled to accept after fighting against overwhelming odds? The object of the Government, as I understand it. is to include these two States in the British dominions, to give the best security for permanent peace, and, when that is achieved, to close the war as soon as possible. I imagine from all their speeches that those are the objects the Government have at heart.
Now, Sir, what are the methods—the only methods—which the Government declare they are prepared to adopt? They say that there must be unconditional surrender of the Boer Governments. In addition to that this other point has been mentioned, that there will be safety for the person and property of the Boers in the field. There never was a civilised war that ended by confiscation of property or by putting to death men simply because they were still in the field. The Government have said also that they will maintain the customs and laws of the country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, ): We have not said that.
SIR ROBERT REID: Lord Kitchener said it.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I daresay the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. Certainly, as far as possible, they will be; but I should not like the Government to be supposed to be committed to maintain the laws of the Transvaal exactly as they wore before the war. It would be absurd.
SIR ROBERT REID: I did not mean that. I was referring to the language used, I think, by Lord Kitchener last December—"substantially to maintain the laws and customs of the country." Of course, no one would think of substituting the English common law for he Roman-Dutch law. What is intended, I imagine, is to leave the customs and laws, as much as may be consistently with an alteration of Government, the same as hitherto. Then the Government said that self-government would be extended at some date hereafter, but no date can be even approximately fixed. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in December last spoke of it as a comparatively early expectation. At the same time the Prime Minister said it might not take place for generations. I ask the House of Commons to consider what these terms really moan to the Boers now in the field. The farms of these men have been ruined, their country is, in parts, almost a desert, and all their stock is gone. In many cases these farms are mortgaged. The interest cannot have been paid in consequence of the war, and there is no prospect of it being paid within the next two or three or four years. If these men lay down their arms, they will find that their mortgagees will be entitled to foreclose upon them, and they can be deprived of their property without having time or opportunity of restoring their own rights, so that, instead of being masters, or farmers, or squires, as the hon. Gentleman opposite called them, they will either have to find some
418
new source of occupation or become labourers so far as white men are labourers in that district. There is another point which especially appeals to men of honour and of spirit. These Boers have fighting in their ranks a certain number of Colonial British subjects, and they have, from the commencement, always made it a point of honour that, if they surrendered, favourable or fair terms should be extended to their comrades in arms. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite or I may think of the conduct of those who have been British subjects, and have enjoyed full self-government, joining the enemies of their country, we cannot expect the Boers to take the same view of it.
Are all these consequences necessary for the honour of this country, or is it reasonable to expect, if the Boers have no assurance that they will be saved from consequences of that character, that they will come in and surrender? If you insist upon their becoming British subjects, there is no honour that forbids you saving them from ruin—and ruin it is which stares them in the face, or which they imagine stares them in the face, unless some such assurances are: given.
Is it necessary, from the point of view of security, that we should refuse any terms except those the Government have laid down? Suppose, as I think will probably be the case, the commandoes now in the field are, before long, dispersed and driven north. They will then become, unless you can get them to consent to British dominion, turbulent and desperate; men—the same kind of men as those who fought in Cuba and Bosnia, and other parts of the world too familiar for me to refer to. You are, at this moment, compiling for them a calendar of heroes and, as they think, of martyrs, and we all know how "martyrdom is the seed of the Church." If you drive these men to desperation by refusing them reasonable and fair terms, our children will feel the consequences, even if we do not feel them ourselves. I say that true honour and true security, so far as that is attainable in present circumstances, lies in giving these men something to hope for and something to live for. I say offer them an amnesty-a free and a full amnesty. Offer them assistance to repair their

419
faring. The cost of two weeks war would go a long way to effect this. (Jive them an undertaking that you will protect them from the gombeenman. Promise them local self-government. For my part, I do not deny that I should like more, but at all events promise them local self-government. It is asked, Would they accept it; would not such an offer be considered a sign of weakness? I can, of course, give no security that they will accept it; but this I will say, that these arguments were the arguments which lost us the American colonies. But, whether accepted or not, these methods would, at all events, go far to fix the loyalty of our white subjects in Cape Colony of Dutch blood, who are as much entitled to our consideration as our fellow-subjects of English blood. They have been in a difficult position, as everyone must feel, throughout this war. They are men who have ties of kindred all over the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and have the sympathies of race which we all share amongst ourselves. And if His Majesty's Government refuse everything except the bare terms of unconditional surrender—for I do not regard the accessories which I have mentioned as being anything of importance—you will go some way towards alienating the feelings of the Dutch at the Cape who are disposed to be loyal. It is of supreme importance that we should not, if we can help it, encourage the racial feeling that exists already, as we all know, in Cape Colony. We have practically suspended the constitution of (Jape Colony as a temporary measure during the war, but if we contrive to alienate permanently the Dutch population in Capo Colony we shall be confronted with a problem which has never yet been faced by this country—namely, how to deal with a self-governing colony under the British Crown in which the majority of the population are ill-disposed towards the British connection. This country
420
has already made enormous sacrifices. We do not know how much this war will cost in money; but to my mind money is the smallest part. We have sacrificed many brave men—many have lost their lives, more have been mutilated and their lives made miserable—and we have sacrificed the friendship of almost all the European Powers. I do not suppose anyone who watches foreign affairs will dispute that.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I dispute it absolutely.
SIR ROBERT REID: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Governments he may be accurate. I am referring to the population, which is bitterly hostile to us in consequence of this unhappy war. We have lost all that; and, though the country is perfectly prepared to make sacrifices for what is necessary, His Majesty's Government have no right to call for sacrifices from this country unless they are prepared to make peace as easy as possible for those who are our enemies in the field. The greatest master of human nature that ever lived left behind him, among many other priceless legacies, this sentence—
"When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."
It is with a profound conviction of that truth that I appeal to the Government, although I fear it is hopeless for anyone sitting on this side of the House to do so, that while they are calling on our countrymen for these renewed sacrifices they should at least do all they can for the purpose of bringing this disastrous and lamentable war to an honourable conclusion, and that they cannot do without offering easy and honourable and fair terms to the enemy, whose, gallantry in the field has been attested by more than one Unionist speaker in this House.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman should have concluded his very moderate speech to the House by assuming that his appeal would meet with no approval, gain no satisfaction, from this side of the House. The object, as stated by him, is an object which we, equally with him, have in view. We desire to bring this war to an honourable conclusion; we are determined to avoid no steps which will conduce to that result. It is possible we may differ as to the methods; but certainly he docs not appeal to deaf ears when he speaks only of the principles on which our policy should be based.
The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman is the only speech delivered in the course of this debate which has called for any remark from my self. That speech is addressed, no doubt, to the policy of the Government. The hon. Gentleman adjures us to pursue a particular policy with regard to the future settlement after the war. But other speakers have devoted themselves chiefly to other points—points generally of military administration, which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War will, no doubt, have an opportunity of replying to in the course of this debate. And let me remark, in passing, the strange case of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. The hon. Member had on the Paper for some time an Amendment* which raised a most important issue—an issue of policy, not of administration—which suggests that the time has arrived when we should give
* The following is the Amendment placed on the Paper by Mr. Lloyd-George:—"Humbly to represent to Your Majesty that, in the interests of the future peace of South Africa, the time has arrived when it should be made known to all resisting Your Majesty's forces that on the cessation of hostilities Your Majesty will be pleased, subject to the overlordship of the British Crown, to grant the security of equal rights to all the white inhabitants and protection and justice to the Native population, and to establish full local autonomy within the several areas of South Africa."
422
assurances to those who are now resisting His Majesty's forces that at the cessation of hostilities we will not only grant security of equal rights to all the white inhabitants and protection and justice to the natives—a policy which we have already promised—but that we should establish full local autonomy within the several areas of South Africa. That is the gist of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs; and the House has listened to a speech of invective from beginning to end of about an hour's duration, in which the hon. Member has never referred to his own Amendment. He has not moved his Amendment; he has devoted himself to prolonged abuse of British officers, British policy, British Ministers; and all this invective against British subjects, and all this praise of the enemies of Great Britain has been cheered enthusiastically by the Opposition. I shall return to this Amendment presently; but meanwhile I must correct an impression that prevails in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who seems to think that there was a period in the course of this war, when the troops reached Pretoria, when it might have been possible by the offer of terms to put an end to the war. I cannot conceive what effort of the imagination has led him to that belief. It is absolutely contradicted by all the information in our possession. I believe that there is not the slightest foundation for it. At that time, or shortly after that time, it is quite true that there was an interview between Commandant Botha, who represented only a portion of the forces of the Republics, and Sir Redvers Buller; but the hon. and learned Gentleman does not appear to be aware that in the course of that interview Commandant Botha said distinctly that he would not listen to any term of peace which did not grant the full independence of the Republics.
SIR ROBERT REID: I think Sir Redvers Buller thought otherwise.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what was in Sir Redvers Buller's mind, he has the advantage of me.
SIR ROBERT REID: I infer it from what he said in his despatch.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is a perfectly unjustifiable inference. I believe that there is not the slightest foundation for the theory that peace could have been had, after the capture of Pretoria, for anything less than the surrender on our part of all the objects of the war.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that this splendid opportunity was lost by the statement of Lord Roberts that we required an unconditional surrender on the part of the Government. I have already explained that that statement of Lord Roberts referred to the demand for independence which, from the moment the war was declared, was a demand which we absolutely refused to consider again. It did not, of course, refer to the condition of individual members of the forces in opposition to us, and that that was quite clear to them is perfectly evident to anyone who will read the account of the interview; but in that interview Sir Redvers Buller stated to Botha that all members of the force would be permitted to retire with their small arms—not their guns—to their farms, and would he unmolested in the pursuit of their ordinary vocations.
SIR WILLIAM HARCQURT: And the officers?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: And the officers, certainly. As I have said, the only points in this debate with which I am qualified to deal are what may be
424
described as questions affecting the political side of the war, and of the settlement which we hope will some day be reached. Let me say that I have nothing to add to what I said on 2nd December in the House. It was endeavoured then to represent what I said as something new; that a new spirit prevailed; and in that way a sort of an attempt was made to represent the Government as vacillating and changing in its policy. There was absolutely no foundation for that. The truth was that what I said on 2nd December was only some amplification and explanation of what I had said in August of the same year. The policy of the Government has never varied. Before the invasion of British territory, we were ready to accept the most moderate concessions. We were ready to accept a franchise which, even under the most favourable circumstances, could not have operated with any effect for a good number of years. We were willing to accept any condition which gave us the hope of improvement in the position of the British subjects whose interests we were defending, provided that we could avoid this war. But the moment invasion took place, and the first shot was fired by the Boers, that moment we declared our policy that not one shred of the independence which the Boers had abused should ever again be conceded to them.
That was the policy stated by the Prime Minister in his answer to the representations which were made to him by the Presidents of the two Republics. That was the policy, is the policy, and will be the policy of His Majesty's Government to the end. Let there be no mistake about that. It is no use arguing with us on the subject of independence. That, as far as we are concerned, is a closed question. Raise it, if you like to raise it, not in speeches, but by Amendments. We are quite ready. We challenged you at the last election. You have never ceased to complain of the

425
challenge. We challenge you in the House of Commons. Bring forward your views. If you believe the annexation we have announced ought to be repudiated; if you think, with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, that we ought to restore the independence of these two Republics, in any form, it is for you to say so in a definite Amendment. It is for you to put the issue before the House of Commons and the country, and we are perfectly prepared to meet you. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we are all united—which I am afraid we are not—assuming we are all agreed that annexation cannot be undone, then the policy of the Government is and has been to establish equality between the two races from the moment of the annexation, so far as our power extends, and protection and justice for the native population, and to grant the fuller liberties involved in our definition of self-government as soon as that can be safely conceded. But I cannot conceal from myself that the Opposition must take a certain amount of responsibility for those of its members, a considerable number, who are in favour of retracing our steps, once more making a Majuba Convention, and restoring these colonies to the Boers. It is a remarkable thing that we have had six speakers in this debate on the South African question, and every speaker has been opposed to annexation. Where are the members of the Opposition in favour of annexation? We heard a great deal about them at the time of the General Election. It was thought to be a most ungenerous thing to say that a vote gained by the Opposition was a vote gained by the Boers. We have had six pro-Boers speaking in this debate, and have not had a single Liberal Imperialist.
SIR ROBERT REID: The right hon. Gentleman has no right to call Gentlemen
426
in this House pro-Boers. We are just as much lovers of our country as he is.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The term pro-Boer—
SIR ROBERT REID: Is a very offensive observation.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, indeed! Directly the hon. and learned Gentleman says the term is offensive I willingly withdraw it. Now, will he give me another one? Will he tell me what word he suggests as describing a Member of the House who thinks the Boers have been right from beginning to end, and who thinks the British Government and, of course, the country, have been wrong, who believes every scandalous libel against the honour of British soldiers and British officers, who repudiates with scorn every accusation against Boer generals or Boer statesmen?
SIR ROBERT REID: The right hon. Gentleman makes charges against Members of this House. When have I made accusations against the honour of British soldiers?
ME. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say you.
SIR ROBERT REID: In the heat of his argument will the right hon, Gentleman be good enough to remember that Gentlemen on this side of the House do not like being insulted in general language. If he has any observations to make about my conduct I will listen. If I am wrong I will withdraw. But I will require him to prove them.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no occasion to offer any proof beyond

427
speeches made in this House during the present session and the preceding session. As I have said, the point of difference between the two sides of the House must not be taken as the question of annexation. What is the point of difference? I would wish—I say it most sincerely—it were possible we were unanimous. Who can doubt for a moment that if the House were unanimous in regard to the war, the hands of the Executive—not a party Government, but the Executive —of the nation would be enormously strengthened? A great deal is said about the effect of what goes on in this House on the war and feeling in South Africa. Of course it has an effect. I do not give that as a reason why hon. Gentlemen should repress their sentiments if they feel bound to relieve their consciences by denouncing their own countrymen. That is their responsibility. It is not for me to judge them. But they must always bear in mind what the effect is. They cannot deny that. They cannot deny that the effect of a divided House, and men of reputation and standing in this country holding such language as has been held by the Leader of the opposition and others, must be encouraging to the Boers in the field. Therefore, I say, I wish most heartily and sincerely that it were possible, even at this stage, to come to a general agreement. But if we cannot do that, the next best thing is to have a definite issue. Then, at all events, if we cannot see the country is unanimous, we can see, perhaps, in what proportion it is divided.
But. Sir, a definite issue is just the thing the Opposition appears at this moment most anxious to avoid. What is the issue, if it is not the question of annexation? Three of the speakers in this debate, one of the Members for Aberdeen, the senior Member for Northampton—[An HON. MEMBER: The junior Member]—Oh, I beg pardon—the junior Member for Northampton, are certainly
428
among those on the other side of the House who are opposed to annexation. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen told us —he put it forward, I think rather as a counsel of perfection—that his own opinion was in favour of destroying their independence and treating them as protected States. I do not feel called upon to bring that to an issue, for it may fairly be said that it is a personal opinion not held by any large portion of the Opposition. But that is not the ease with regard to the curious evanescent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. The Leader of the Opposition made a speech on the first night of this debate, and what was the effect of that speech? We were to offer terms to the enemy. And what terms? Immediate concession of self-government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] Yes, it was indeed. I will examine it a little more closely. He criticised the Government, he attacked the Government, he insinuated that the Government were not doing everything they could to lay proper terms before the Boer commanders, but unless it is a question of immediately giving self-government there is no question between us. The Boers know perfectly well, they have been told again and again, directly and indirectly, and it has been repeatedly stated in this House, that at the earliest possible moment they will be granted self-government. There is no question between us if that is all the right hon. Gentleman meant. But no, he intended a great deal more, because I remember perfectly well his preaching to the country before the House met that there should be no interval between military administration and self-government. We say there must be an intermediate period when civil government will be established, but not full self-government.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I thought you said

429
Crown colony government. That is what I object to.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Either the right hon. Gentleman does not know what Grown colony government is or else he is quibbling about words. Will he be satisfied if I call it a civil government, with Ministers and a Governor appointed by His Majesty and a council to advise him? That is civil government, and it has this about it—that the Imperial Government has control in the last resort. That is what we mean. The issue between the two sides was clearly put by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and that is what sets the Front Bench opposite into fits. That is a clear issue, and that is what they want to avoid. I should have liked to see the scene when the Leader of the Opposition went to the hon. Member for Carnarvon and said, "Oh, for Heaven's sake, do not let the cat out of the bag. Do not put a definite issue; who shall be beaten. Let us talk as much as we like, accuse the Government of anything you like; let us suggest everything, but do not bring matters to the test of a division in the House of Commons." I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say if I have misrepresented the view of himself and others on the Front Bench opposite. The view is not put in definite form, but it is desirable that it should be put into definite form, otherwise we are liable to misunderstanding. In my opinion, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon puts into terms in which it could be dealt with by the House everything that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to accept in the course of his speech, not, however, daring to challenge a vote thereon.
Now let us sec what this issue means—let us treat it seriously. We are to propose an armistice to the leaders of the Boers, who made war upon us and whom we have defeated. Very well. Having done that, we are to say, im-
430
mediately on the cessation of hostilities you are to be given self-government on the model of the Australian State. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that, and I say a more inept, more childish, more ridiculous and more impracticable proposal was never made. What docs the proposal amount to? After all the sacrifices in this war, we are to place in the hands of the Dutch population of the Transvaal from which the English population has already been expelled the power of stultifying everything we have done, and enable them under a constitution granted by us to frustrate every object for which the war was undertaken. And why is this proposal made to us? If we were willing once more to enter upon this sort of transaction with the Boers, a, transaction which failed so lamentably on a previous occasion, we shall not be able to say again, as we said then many of us, as we believed then, that it was a magnanimous policy and that it would be accepted as such. There is no magnanimity in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a proposal dictated by his fears. What did be tell us? He told us he was aghast at the present military situation and aghast at the consequences that might follow after the conclusion of the war, and it is upon the ground that our position is an impossible one that, after all these sacrifices we are to betray those who have trusted us, to betray the country which has given, us its support, to betray the colonies who have come to our assistance—that we are to do all this, and admit that we, this great Empire, must, in view of the dangerous position in which we find ourselves, surrender everything for which we have been fighting. To whom are we to make these proposals? There are five leaders in the field at the present moment. Are we to make them to all of them? And if one agrees and the others disagree, or four agree and one disagrees, what are we to do then?

431
The right hon. Gentleman accused us the, other day—he used some strong language, because, as he said, we had obliterated the regular Government when we annexed these States. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we ought to have stopped at Bloemfontein or Pretoria, while the regular Government was reforming. At Pretoria we annexed the Transvaal; from that time there was no regular Government, and could not be. We are only dealing now with the leaders of separate bands in the field, and the terms we have to make are the terms, the conditions, which may be offered to them and to those they lead.
Then there is another-point. The right hon. Gentleman, followed by the hon. and learned Gentleman to-night says that we are in face of a position which is almost an impossible position. The right hon. Gentleman said that there must be: that it is inevitable that there should be, a majority of Dutchmen in South Africa. In the first place, I protest against the use of the word. It is not a question of Dutch. That is an attempt to recognise these so-called racial hostilities. It is a question of loyalist and disloyalist; it is a question of loyalist and rebel, and for my part I am very glad to believe that a very large proportion, I believe the majority, of the Dutch may be reckoned among the loyalist population. From those, therefore, we have nothing whatever to fear, and even if it were true that there would be a, racial majority of Dutch in South Africa, so long as the majority of the Dutch or a large proportion of the Dutch are loyal to the; British Grown we should have no ground whatever for being alarmed. But, alter all, I do not believe that there will be a majority, and I am not by any means certain that there was a majority before the war. Returns are so imperfect that it is impossible to speak with absolute certainty. But if the riches of the Transvaal are anything like what
432
has been generally suggested, what has been accepted by the other side whenever we talk about the power of taxing them, if the resources of the, country are anything like what is, I believe, universally conceded, then with the development of the country which will follow the conclusion of the war, I believe that the proportion of the subjects of British birth and origin will be very largely in excess of those of any other nationality.
My hon. friend the Member for Oldham, in his very admirable speech, a speech which I am sure that those who were friends and intimates of his father will have welcomed with the utmost satisfaction in the hope that we may see the father repeated in the son—my hon. friend in that speech called attention to a practical matter which appears to have escaped the attention altogether of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. That is, that at the present time, owing to the action of the Boers, who, if we are to use the language of the Member for Carnarvon, I should have to say with great brutality expelled Englishmen, English women, English children, sent them away in uncovered trucks and submitted them to every insult and outrage—if we are to take no account of them, then the franchise and the control of the country if given to the Boers would be given to a party which by its own misdeeds in this matter misrepresents its former population, two-thirds at least of which were of a different opinion. Surely it is only reasonable to suppose, before we grant full government, that the country must be restored to something like its normal condition, and that its old inhabitants, those who contributed to its prosperity, and on whose energy and enterprise its future depends, should have returned to their homes and should be able to take part in the political future of the country. If that is the issue which the

433
hon. Member for Carnarvon puts down on the Paper, but which he refuses to carry to a vote—if that is the issue between us—all I can say is that we refuse to have anything to do with the policy suggested. We are quite ready to establish the civil government of which I have spoken, we are ready to maintain equality, we are ready to secure justice to all the inhabitants of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, but we are not prepared to put into their hands the whole control of the administration and civil government until we know it will be safe to do so.
It is said that our views have not been communicated to the leaders of the Boers, and that a proclamation which I promised I would endeavour to have circulated has not yet been so distributed. I wish to say that, so far as the leaders are concerned, I am convinced they know perfectly well what terms we are willing to offer. There is no excuse on their part. It is possible that many of their followers, being ignorant people—when they come to us as prisoners we find they have been deceived as to what is going on—do not know the terms we are willing to offer. We have by various means endeavoured to get to the rank and file a knowledge of the terms which are being offered, and we know what the result has been. The emissaries who have been sent —emissaries not sent by us, but permitted by us to go, who volunteered themselves in what they believed to be the interests of their countrymen, to make these representations—these emissaries have been apparently, as far as our information goes, brutally ill-used, tortured before execution, shot as spies after having been flogged. And that action on the part of the Boers finds defenders among those Members of the House who cannot find invective too strong in which to attack British soldiers and British officers. All I can say is that, as far as I am concerned, I have been in constant com-
434
munication with Sir Alfred Milner, and through him Lord Kitchener, as to the possibility of any additional communication being made to these forces. The present moment would seem to be hardly suitable for such a purpose, but I ask them to keep me informed as to any possible opportunity for further representations.
In view of the hour I cannot attempt to say more. I will only say, in conclusion, that we are not discussing to-night, although several Gentlemen have tried to introduce the point, the original justice of the war. I cannot understand how any person who approaches this matter with an unprejudiced mind can fail to see, in view of all the information which is now in our possession, that this struggle bad to come. The real issue behind all the negotiations, behind everything else, was the determination of the Boers to secure supremacy in South Africa; and all their preparations were made for it. That if we had allowed matters to go much further our difficulties would have enormously increased is certainly my conscientious conviction. I am also convinced that, now that we are in the war, in spite of the fact, which we regretfully acknowledge, that the sacrifices which have been called for are greater than we expected, and that the war has lasted longer than anyone anticipated, the country is of the same mind in which it has always been—that it will grudge no sacrifice which is necessary to carry the war to a successful conclusion, and that it will forgive no Government and no party which attempts to stultify the objects with which the war has been undertaken.
Debate adjourned till to-morrow.
House adjourned at Twelve of the clock.