Sitting of 11 March 1901

Preamble
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  SWANSEA HARBEUR BILL. [BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR, who had given notice of a motion for the rejection of the measure, said he had no desire to place obstacles in the way of the construction of the new dock and other improvements at Swansea which were contemplated by the Bill, nor did he and those who were acting with him intend to interfere with the discretion of the Swansea Har-

  1143
  bour trustees to charge what rates they thought fit on shipping entering that port; but what they did say was that those rates ought to be charged on the legal tonnage of the ships, and not upon the arbitrary tonnage basis proposed in the Bill. This endeavour to substitute an arbitrary tonnage basis for the tonnage basis laid down by the Merchant Shipping Act was an endeavour to interfere with a public Act by means of a private Bill, and was opposed to public policy. Every British ship had to be measured under the Merchant Shipping Act, and her tonnage had to be ascertained in accordance with a system of measurement laid down by that Act. When the tonnage of the ship had been thus ascertained it was cut into the ship's beam, and that then became for all purposes the tonnage of the ship. That tonnage was the tonnage on which rates had to be charged, and in point of fact this system was uniform all through the country with one or two exceptions. In all ports, with one or two exceptions, where the tonnage dues were charged they were charged on the legal tonnage of the ship. This Bill proposed to establish a new system of tonnage. It proposed that in the case of steam vessels other than steam tugs the net registered tonnage on which dues should be charged should in no case be less than 50 per cent. of the gross tonnage, and that in the case of tugs the net registered tonnage should in no case be less than 18 per cent, of the gross tonnage. If Swansea were to have this power of making her own tonnage basis tile same liberty would have to be conceded to other ports, and the uniformity established by the Merchant Shipping Act would be destroyed, and a state of chaos would be brought about. There was an additional advantage of the present system, inasmuch as when the British system of measurement was adopted by foreign countries the tonnage of the ship ascertained in the foreign country was her tonnage for all purposes in Great Britain, He did not see why a provision of that kind should be overridden by the proposals of a private Bill. He thought the reason on the part of the Swansea trustees for asking for this power was that there were some vessels which were so constructed that
  1144
  they obtained a net registered tonnage much less than they ought to have, and on that account it was desired to correct the anomaly by means of this proposal. But if it was desired to correct an anomaly arising out of the general law it should be done by an amendment of the general law, or by an alteration in the instructions given by the Beard of Trade to their surveyors. He understood that the Beard of Trade had this very matter under their consideration at the present time, and it that were so, surely it was a very inopportune time for any particular port to rectify the matter by means of a private Bill. He would remind the House that in 1899 a Bill was brought, before the House of Lords in which this proposal was contained in reference to Bristol and other ports, and when the matter was brought under the notice of Lord Morley, as Chairman of Committees, he said it was not one that ought to be proposed in a private Bill, and the Bill was withdrawn. He did not wish that this Bill should be withdrawn, for it contained many very useful and beneficial matters, but he hoped the promoters would give an undertaking that this particular clause would not be pressed. If it were not pressed he would withdraw his opposition to the Bill. If, on the other hand, the clause came down from the Committee in the shape in which it now stood, the opposition to the Bill would be renewed, and he should press it to a division.
  SIR GEORGE NEWNESremarked that this Bill proposed an expenditure of £2,000,000 for the benefit of a. densely-populated district and of the commerce of the country, and the clause to which objection had been taken by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool was, after all, only a subsidiary matter. He should have pleasure in accepting the offer of the hon. Member and in acceding to his terms.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid that in these circumstances he would not oppose the Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

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

  Cambrian Railways Bill.

  Llandrindod Wells Water Bill.

  Richmond Gas Bill.

  Stroud Gas Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.
    BURGESS HILL WATER BILL.

      DEVONPORT GAS AND COKE BILL.
      GLASGOW AND RENFREW DISTRICT RAILWAY TRANSFER BILL.
      NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
      SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863, and the Acts amending the same, relating to the Triogue Drainage District, in Queen's Comity, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Drainage and Improvements of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863, and the Acts amending the same, relating to the Triogue Drainage District, in Queen's County," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petition from Isle of Wight, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; lo lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Meopham; and Bideford; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Ryde; Aston; and Royton; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Bristol, for extension to Women; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1890.
  Petition for alteration of Law, from Whitby; and Strood; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Glasgow (four); Govan; Manchester; Aberdeen (two); Dumbarton; Burnley; Carlisle (two); West Kent; Cumwinton; Largs; Poulton; Malton; Hawick; London; Southampton; Llandillo (four); Selkirk: Lander (two); and York; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Larkhall; Perth; Aberchirder; Buckie; Peebles; Charlestown of Aberlour; Tillicoultry; Ardrossan; Arbroath; Port Glasgow (three); and Glasgow (two); to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; to lie upon the Table
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNFUNDED DEBT.
  Return [presented 8th March] to be printed. [No. 79.]
  EXPLOSIONS (MESSRS. CURTIS AND HARVEY'S FACTORY AT TRIMLEY MARSH, SUFFOLK).
  Copy presented, of Report by Captain M. B. Lloyd, R.A., Her late Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending Explosions which occurred at the Mixing House and Store at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Trimley, Suffolk, on the 28th November, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON).
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the Council of the County Borough of Brighton on the 4th June, l896, the 19th January, 1899, and the 21st February, 1901, altering certain Polling Districts in the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL WORKS ACTS, 1896, 1896, 1897, AND 1899.
  Account presented, showing the amount of Money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the amount and nature of the Securities created in respect thereof; the amount of the surplus of Income over Expenditure for the financial year ended 31st March, 1896, and the amount of Money expended in pursuance of the Acts during the year ended the 31st March, 1900; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 80].
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Forty-sixth Annual Report on the Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland for 1900, and Thirty-fifth Annual Report on Vaccination [by Command]: to lie upon the Table."
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CODE, 1901).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1901, with Appendices [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.

  PATENT ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the working of the
  1148
  Patent Acts on certain specified suggestions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, No. 2560 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PHARMACY ACTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 7th March, 1901, approving of a Regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Return of all sums received by the Visitors of Lunatics for travelling expenses, or upon any other account, from 1st January to 31st December, 1900 [by Act].
  COLONIAL LOANS ACT, 1899.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement showing to what Colonies up to the present time sums have been advanced by the Treasury under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899, and for what purposes, to what amounts, and at what rates of interest; also the date on which each such Loan was sanctioned, and the date fixed for its repayment."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION, OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Address for "Return of the number of all deaths in the Administrative County of London, in the year 1900, upon which a coroner's jury has returned a verdict of death from starvation, or death accelerated by privation; together with any observations furnished to the Local Government Beard by Beards of Guardians with reference to cases included in the Return (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 345, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Talbot.)
  ST. CROSS HOSPITAL, WINCHESTER.
  Copy ordered, "of Correspondence with the Charity Commissioners with reference to the new scheme for the administration of St. Cross Hospital, Winchester."—(Sir Walter Foster.)

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Copy ordered, "of Handbook to the Reports from the Committee of Public

  1149
  Accounts, Vol. III (1893 to 1900), with Index comprehending the three Vols. (1857 to 1900)."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.81.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR— MONEY GRANT TO EARL ROBERTS.
  MR: THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to propose a grant of money to Earl Roberts in respect of his services in South Africa; and, if so, on or about what date the Vote may be expected to be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have nothing to say on the subject at the present time.

  VALUE OF CHARTERED COMPANY'S LANDS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangements have been made by the Colonial Office to ascertain the value of property in land taken under the Chartered Company in South Africa before the breaking out of the war; and whether he can state how these allotments have been affected by the war; and, in case of death of grantees before the war, the property is now vested in any court or officer to whom inquiries as to particular estates can be addressed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Master of the High Court of Southern Rhodesia is the official who has charge of the estates of all persons deceased in Southern Rhodesia to whom inquiries should be addressed. I have no information as to the value of the land in question nor as to how it has been affected by the war.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If particular cases are brought under the notice of the Colonial Office will inquiries be made?
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman wishes for information as to
  1150
  any particular case and will communicate with me privately, I will endeavour to get it for him.

  NEWSPAPER LIBELS ON BRITISH OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if his attention has been drawn to proceedings taken by the Attorney General of the Cape Colony against the editor of the South African News for publishing a defamatory and seditious libel; if he is aware that the matter in question originally appeared in the Freeman's Journal of 15th January, being reprinted in The Time 16th January; whether it is his intention to take similar proceedings against those papers; and, if not, if he can explain on what grounds does the action of those papers differ from that of the South African News; and whether he has considered the desirability of such a prosecution, so that by a discovery order being made the name of the writer of the original matter may be disclosed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The propriety of proceedings for libel must depend upon the circumstances under which the publication has taken place. I may remind the hon. and gallant Member that such libels upon our officers and soldiers ate in this country generally appreciated at their true value, while in the peculiar circumstances of South Africa their circulation there may do infinite mischief. The procedure suggested in the last paragraph of the question is quite unknown to our criminal law, and the proposal that a criminal prosecution should be instituted merely to obtain information is not one which commends itself lo my mind.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SERVING IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state when he will be prepared to grant the Return asked for as to the Members of both Houses of Parliament who volunteered for active service in South Africa.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The hon. Member's proposed Return will involve a reference on various points to

  1151
  South Africa. I hope the hon. Member will not press just now for such a Return, the preparation of which will involve a great deal of correspondence, to the detriment of work of a more pressing and important character.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to give notice that I shall press for the Return.

  RETURN OF VOLUNTEERS FROM THE FRONT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state when the London Scottish and other Volunteers who have been on active service for upwards of a year in South Africa will be allowed to return to this country, so that they may no longer risk the loss of the situations which have been so long kept open for them.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (LORD SSTANLEY,): As I have recently explained to the House, we are endeavouring to relieve as many as possible of the Volunteers, but it is not possible to say exactly when Lord Kitchener will be able to spare them.

  COST OF ANIMAL TRANSPORT TO SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the total amount of money spent since October, 1899, on the transport of horses and mules to South Africa from Great Britain and elsewhere.
  LORD STANLEY: I have already stated to the House on a previous occasion that the cost cannot be given.

  SOLDIERS' UNCLAIMED BALANCES.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if ho will state the amount of soldiers' unclaimed balances for the last year, and what portion of these ascertainable has been handed over to the Patriotic Fund Commissioners.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on Friday last, the 8th instant.*
  See page 1028.

  DECEASED SOLDIERS' ESTATES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what grounds the War Office withhold payment of the estate of the late Private James Meehan, 1st Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers, who was killed in action at Amerfoot on 29th June last, from his widowed mother; whether he is aware that she has taken out letters of administration so as to safeguard the War Department in case of any other claims; and whether, as this poor woman is living in destitution in Longford, the money will now be ordered to be paid to her.
  LORD STANLEY: Instructions wore given on the 6th instant to issue the estate, amounting to £17 0s. 4d., to the man's mother. The delay arose through inability to obtain proof of the father's death, on whom, if alive, the estate devolved, as the soldier died intestate and unmarried.

  PURCHASE OF FIELD GUNS FROM GERMANY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether ho can state who is responsible for advising the purchase of eighteen batteries of field guns from Germany; were they delivered according to contract, and inspected previously to acceptance; did the manufacturers supply projectiles, and what percentage of premature bursts have occurred; and have any other points of weakness developed in the mountings beyond the axle-trees.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State, under the advice of the responsible officers, is responsible for the purchase of all artillery guns, and of these as well as others. They were delivered according to contract and inspected previously to acceptance. The manufacturers supplied projectiles and fuses. No premature bursts have occurred. Some defects have been discovered, which will be remedied.

  DISCHARGES FROM THE ARMY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the parents of a lad just over eighteen years of age, who enlisted in the Cameron Highlanders as recently as January last, have been unable to secure his discharge although they have offered to make the usual payment of £10; and will he

  1153
  consider the expediency of arranging for discharge by indulgence in cases such as this without awaiting the order for demobilisation.
  LORD STANLEY: The rule against the grant of discharges during mobilisation has been strictly enforced, and an exception in an individual case could not be made without injustice to the many who have been refused their discharge.

  AGE CERTIFICATES FOR RECRUITS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the new reforms of our Army system, the regulations for enlistment will be so altered by the requirement from the proposed recruit of the production of actual proof of age by birth or baptismal certificate or otherwise so as to preclude for good the possibility of a recruit, whether for Regulars, Militia, or Volunteers, being enlisted under a false or apparent age, and so remaining all through his military career, and nullifying the true efficacy of any age regulations of time at which he may become available for increase of pay or pension.
  LORD STANLEY: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, an experiment was made a few years ago to test the possibility of introducing a system of verification of soldiers' ages. The results of the experiment were such as to show that it would be impracticable to require the production of a birth or baptismal certificate from every recruit.

  PIMLICO CLOTHING DEPARTMENT— MASTER TAILOR CUTTERS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the nature of the examinations for the position of the master tailor cutters at Pimlico Clothing Department; whether the competition is open to young men; how many of them are Roman Catholics; what are their salaries; and whether a similar; clothing department will be established in Ireland either at Dublin, Belfast, or Cork.
  LORD STANLEY: There are no "master tailor cutters" at the Army Clothing Department. Cutters are accepted on the strength of testimonials and characters received from former employers. Subject to age limits, anyone may apply,
  1154
  and no inquiry is made as to the religion of those employed. It is not proposed to establish a clothing department in Ireland.

  NEW NAVAL COLLEGE AT DEVONPORT.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say when the new Naval College to replace H M.S. "Britannia" will be ready for occupation, and whether in the meantime temporary accommodation for the Naval cadets could be secured elsewhere.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The contract for the completion of the sick quarters terminates on 12th May, 1902, and for the College Buildings on 12th November, 1904, and at present no reason is seen for supposing that the work will not be completed by the contract time. The question of temporary accommodation is being considered in case it may be found necessary to remove the cadets from H.M.S. "Britannia" before the completion of the new buildings.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in the case of single ships or squadrons of His Majesty's Navy at sea, if he can state what provision is made for the administration of the last sacraments which are of obligation to Roman Catholic sailors when dying.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As stated in reply to previous questions, it is not possible to carry Roman Catholic chaplains on beard His Majesty's ships. Full provision is made for ministering to the wants of Roman Catholic sailors on shore. The cruises are as a rule now of short duration, but during their continuance Roman Catholics on beard His Majesty's ships are in the same position, as regards the administration of the sacraments, as sailors on other seagoing vessels during a voyage.

  TIME-EXPIRED MEN-OF-WAR'S MEN ON THE CHINA STATION.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a number of men-of-war's men now serving on the "Barfleur," the

  1155
  "Centurion," and other war shops stationed in the Chinese waters expired men; whether they detained against their will; they may be expected to be come home.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The King's Regulations direct that time-expired men are to be sent home in time to admit of their receiving their discharge when the term of their engagement expires, unless the exigencies of the Service are such as to render their detention for a time necessary. It is possible that owing to the recent troubles in China some men may have been detained, but the cases must be few and their detention would not be continued when the existence of the necessity was removed.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of the responsible authority to the desire of the men to be immediately released?
  MR. ARNOLD-EORSTER: I have no doubt that the attention of the Commander-in-Chief has been called to the fact that the men are time-expired.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL—LABOURERS' WAGES.
  MR. ARTHUR MORTON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many labourers are employed in the Naval Ordnance Department of Woolwich Arsenal, and what rates of pay they receive, distinguishing the number of men employed and the rate of wages paid in each separate class.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk,): There are 365 labourers employed at rates of pay varying from 21s. to 27s. per week. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member further details if he will speak to me after Questions.
  CAPTAIN NORTON): How many are employed under 24s. a week?
  *Mr. PRETYMAN: About 325.

  CHINA LOOTING AT PEKING AND TIENTSIN.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for foreign Affairs whether the
  1156
  Government have any information to show that looting and pillage have been committed by British or other European troops in or near Peking or Tientsin, and that valuable property thus plundered has been publicly sold under the direction of British officers; whether such conduct is contrary to the modern usages of war as declared by the Hague Convention; and whether the Government intend to adopt any means for the restitution of the property so taken, and for the punishment of the offenders as their conduct may deserve.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): So far as I know there has not been any pillage or plunder by British troops in China in the sense implied by the question. General Gaselee reported in August last that "looting was openly tolerated among certain of the allied troops," and every effort was made by him to prevent our soldiers from participating in the indiscriminate plunder and wanton destruction of property which was prevalent elsewhere. In the areas assigned to British occupation there were a number of derelict houses. General Gaselee directed that the ownerless property so left should be taken charge of by authorised search parties, and where the legal owner could not be found sold by public auction for the benefit of all. There has not been any violation of the Hague Convention.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Would it be possible to have General Gaselee's report presented to the House?
  MR. TULLY: Is it not a fact that at actually selling loot taken in China?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Possibly that may be so, but it does not necessarily follow that the things were looted by British troops. As to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, I am rather doubtful, as General Gaselee's report referred not only to British but to other troops.

  CAPE-AUSTRALIAN CABLE.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the importance of the projected Cape-Australian cable as con-

  1157
  stituting a link in the All-British system, he would lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the agreement with the contracting company; and whether permission has been granted for landing rights on each and all of the intervening mid-ocean stations, and what terms and conditions have been attached thereto in the protection of the public interests.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No formal agreement has been signed between His Majesty's Government and the Eastern and Eastern Extension Cable Companies in regard to the Cape-Australian cable, but I have informed the company that landing rights at Mauritius, Rodriguez, and Cocos Islands will be granted on condition that the sliding scale rates in regard to the traffic between England and South Africa are extended to these places. It is intended that the landing licences shall contain the same conditions and stipulations in favour of the Government and the public as the licence about to be issued by the Board of Trade to the same Company for the new cable from Madeira to Porth Curnow.

  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—ARRANGEMENTS FOR REBUILDING.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the delay in the rebuilding of the Central Criminal Court is due to the action of any Government Department; whether he is aware that the Corporation of the City of London have duly approved plans for the rebuilding but are unable to proceed owing to the difficulties placed in their way by the Government; and, seeing two judges have recently been indisposed in consequence of having to preside at trials under the present insanitary conditions of the Old Bailey, whether any steps can be taken to temporarily avoid such a state of affairs pending the erection of the new Courts.
  The following question also appeared on the Paper:—
  DR. FARQUHARSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the insanitary condition of the Central Criminal Court, which has injuriously affected the health of the Lord Chief
  1158
  Justice and other Judges who have had occasion to sit there; and whether they are in a position to do anything to remedy such a dangerous state of matters.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: I beg to ask the same right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Corporation of London have already paid £25,000 to his Majesty's Commissioners of Prisons in part payment of the £40,000 agreed upon between the Corporation and the Government for the purchase of the male wing of Newgate, and that the City Lands Committee, who have the matter in hand, are quite prepared to start the work of rebuilding the Central Criminal Court as soon as they gain possession of this land from the Government.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): With regard to the question of my hon. friend the Member for the City of London, I have no doubt the facts are as he has stated them, but the City Corporation will allow the financial arrangements with the Government are very favourable to themselves, and they have made them on the express understanding that the prison would not be handed over until accommodation elsewhere was provided for the prisoners. With regard to the question of my hon. friend the Member for St. George's, I have to say that the City of London authorities are responsible for the building in which the Central Criminal Court is held. In order to furnish them with a site on which to build a new court, His Majesty's Government have agreed to surrender Newgate Prison, but in order to make this possible extensive alterations have to be made in prison buildings elsewhere. This involves considerable delay, but it is not the case that His Majesty's Government are placing difficulties in the way. As a matter of fact, the Prison Commissioners are doing all they can to complete the arrangements which are a necessary preliminary to the discontinuance of Newgate Prison, and the transfer of its site to the Corporation.

  HYDE PARK—RAILINGS AND LIGHTING.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is

  1159
  proposed to remove the remaining iron railings inside Hyde Park; and whether he will consider the desirability of lighting the roadway between Victoria Gate and the Marble Arch.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): It is proposed ultimately to remove all the iron post and rail fence in Hyde Park except the portion round the ride. I have not at present sufficient funds to meet the heavy expense of lighting the roadway referred to by my hon. and gallant friend. Seeing that there is a public roadway running parallel to it, and within a few yards, it is not so pressing as other changes.

  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS— TRIENNIAL ELECTIONS.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now give an answer to the petitions of the City of Westminster and other borough councils of London in favour of triennial elections.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL OOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am now in a position to deal with this matter. Subject to its being shown that the conditions prescribed by Subsection 8 of Section 2 of the Local Government Act have been complied with, I propose generally to assent to the applications made to me to direct that the Metropolitan borough councillors shall all retire together on the ordinary day of election in every third year. A few cases in which objections have been received will of course have to be specially considered.

  VACCINATION STATISTICS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many children were born in England and Wales in 1900, or the last year for which the statistics are known, and how many of these were vaccinated.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The latest complete returns are those for the year 1898. The number of children born in that year was 923,059, and of these 562,737 were successfully vaccinated.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand, then, that just half the population is now unvaccinated under the new law?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I should not like my hon. friend to draw that deduction at present, because these figures are only for 1898.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures are larger than those of preceding years?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I could not really say, as I have not the figures before me.

  BEER ADULTERATION.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the unanimous resolution passed by the Carmarthenshire Chamber of Agriculture as to the necessity of a Bill being passed to secure purity in beer, by laying down therein the ingredients of which beer may be composed, and the compelling of brewers at regular intervals to make a return of beer brewed and ingredients used; and, if so, whether he can assure the House of his intention to introduce promptly a Bill carrying out the purport of this resolution.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The President of the Local Government Beard has asked me to answer this question, as the resolution aims, not only at the exclusion of deleterious ingredients from beer, but at limiting the freedom of brewers to use materials which, though wholesome, are not malt and hops. I can give no such assurance on behalf of the Government as is desired by the hon. Member.

  EDUCATION—ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS CURRICULA.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give the House an assurance that in the future administration of the Higher Elementary Minute local authorities applying to have schools recognised under the Minute will be granted freedom in the preparation of proposed curricula for their schools, so

  1161
  that, as in the terms of the Minute, they may adapt the instruction to the circumstances of the scholars and the neighbourhood; and, further, whether he can hold out any prospect that the recognition of schools on whose account application for grants under the Minute is made will be on a more generous scale in the present year than in the past.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BEARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Board of Education give full freedom to managers in all public elementary schools to submit their own courses of study. The only special conditions as to course of instruction attaching to higher elementary schools are (1) that a certain amount of science, proper to a course of general education, is taken; and (2) that technological subjects are not generally admissible. The recognition of higher elementary schools depends not on the generosity of the Board of Education, but upon the existence in the locality of the conditions specified in the Minute.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it a fact that the Board of Education has declined to sanction business training as part of the curriculum for higher grade schools under the London Board?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir. They regard business training as technological.

  NEW DUSTON SCHOOL.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the want of school accommodation at New Duston, and whether lie has received a petition from the inhabitants respecting this lack of accommodation; and whether he can see his way to take the necessary steps to secure that the desired accommodation shall be provided.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; the hon. Member presented me with the petition a few days ago. The urban part of the United School District of Duston has been incorporated in the borough of Northampton, and there is, according to our information, ample school accommodation in the rural I part left outside. New Duston as a separate parish is unknown to the Beard of Education.

  EDUCATION CODE—RURAL SCHOOLS.
  SIR W. HARTDYKE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Council when the new Education Code will be laid on the Table; and whether the new proposals with regard to education in rural schools will become effective under the operation of the Code this year.
  SIR J. GORST: I hope to lay the Code on the Table before Easter. The Papers which have been recently issued represent the settled policy of education, and every effort will be made to introduce into the rural schools of this country the system of teaching embodied in those proposals.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask whether, having regard to the new curriculum, there will be a more generous system of finance under the new Code in dealing with rural schools.
  SIR J. GORST: That is the second question the hon. Member has asked appealing to the generosity of the Beard of Education in this country. Public Departments are never generous. They have to act in accordance with settled rules of law which leave no place for such a sentiment as generosity.

  CIVIL SERVICE—UNESTABLISHED WORK AND PENSIONS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how many persons, at one time employed in the Government service upon a temporary footing, have since 1884 been placed upon the permanent establishment, and of these in how many eases is the continuous temporary service rendered prior to establishment counted towards pension, as if the entire service had been upon the establishment.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir I regret that I have no means of ascertaining the numbers.

  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is in contemplation to reduce the age at which abstracters, sorters, and boy copyists in

  1163
  the Post Office may compete for higher civil service appointments: and, if so, whether those at present in the service will be exempted from the operation of the new rule.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was decided last year in the interests of the public service to diminish the age deduction which may be made by civil servants competing for the second division and for assistantships of Customs and Excise. To prevent any possible hardship I have now arranged that the new Regulations shall only apply to persons who entered the service subsequent to its announcement in the spring of last year.

  CHEAP TEAS.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that quantities of inferior Ceylon and other teas alleged to contain microbial products dangerous to health are being sold in bend in London at prices ranging below 4d. per 1b.; if the Customs officers have taken and analysed any samples of such teas, and with what results; and what amount has been seized and destroyed during the past twelve months; and if, in the interests of public health, he is willing to consent to an inquiry into the best methods of checking the sale of such unwholesome teas by determining some minimum standard of purity, and by securing a proper analysis of such teas before they are blended with other teas.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Hoard of Customs have no knowledge of sales in bond of tea containing microbial products dangerous to health. They have power to forbid the introduction of tea that is found on analysis "to be mixed with other substances or exhausted tea," or is declared by the analyst to be "unfit for human food." During the past twelve months 2,055 packages were refused admission for home consumption or for use as ship stores. The second paragraph of the question should be addressed In the Local Government Board, which is the authority specially charged by statute with the protection of the public health.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: Were the rejected packages destroyed?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that without notice.

  ISSUE OF NEW POSTAGE STAMPS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state what steps are being taken to issue new postage stamps; will he take care that a clearly visible mark of the value; of the stamp, such as that on the 2d. stamp, be impressed on each new stamp; and will he give the public an opportunity of seeing the designs of the proposed stamps; and will he provide for the issue of the new penny stamp in royal scarlet, or red colour, in place of the present mauve colour.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The necessary steps are being taken for the issue of new postage stamps, but it is not expected that they will be ready for some months to come. The Postmaster General would point out to the hon. Member that, with the exception of the halfpenny, penny, and shilling stamps, all the adhesive stamps now in use do hear figures clearly indicating their value, and the same plan will probably lie continued. In the case of the three stamps particularised they are of so distinctive a character that it was not thought necessary to print on them the value, in figures as well as in words, and the Postmaster General is not aware of any inconvenience having resulted. He does not think it desirable to submit the designs of the proposed stamps to the public. The Postmaster General is not satisfied that any sufficient reason exists for altering the colour of the penny stamp as suggested by the hon. Member.

  POSTAL ORDER COUNTERFOILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will arrange; with the present contractors to issue the new postal orders with a counterfoil to be torn off by the senders; and whether, if the present con tractors decline to do this without extra charge, he will give an opportunity to other printers to print and supply the new postal orders at even a reduced price and with the counterfoil desired by the public.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has for some time past had the question of issuing postal orders with counterfoils under his consideration, but there are many practical difficulties in the way, and he has not yet been able to arrive at a conclusion.

  EXAMINING OFFICERS OF CUSTOMS.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that more than 100 examining officers of Customs will become redundant by the substitution of clerks for officers of this class in the Tea and Dry Goods Accounts Offices in the London Custom House, he will give an undertaking that the existing officers of the classes affected shall suffer no retardation of promotion as a result of the contemplated changes: and can he state what objection there is, if any, to inform the officers in advance of the exact measures which will be taken to safeguard their legitimate interests.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am at present unable to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 28th February.*The new arrangements will be communicated to the Customs Services as soon as they are finally settled.

  LERWICK POST OFFICE.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post master General, whether his official information shows that the post office building at Lerwick is in an insanitary condition, having little light and ventilation, and only lavatory accommodation consisting of an apartment about three feet square for the use of a mixed staff of persons; and, whether steps can be taken to make the necessary alterations.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The post office at Lerwick, which was provided in 1878 and enlarged in 1889, is now too small for the work, and as the building is not capable of adequate enlargement in quiries are being made for a, suitable site for the erection of a new building. The Postmaster General is not aware that the present office is insanitary; but inquiry shall be made.
  * See page 58.

  CONVEYANCE OF STORNOWAY MAILS
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state what progress has been made with the negotiations with the North British Railway Company for the conveyance of the Stornoway mails via Mallaig; and will care betaken that tenders are invited for the steamer service between Mallaig and Stornoway.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The negotiations with the North British Railway Company for the use of the new railway to Mallaig have not yet been completed, and no decision has been arrived at in regard to the question of sending mails to Stornoway over this new line. As any steamer service from Mallaig must in the first instance be experimental in character, the Postmaster General thinks that it would not be expedient at present to invite tenders as the hon. Member suggests.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING OFF ABERDEEN
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that the "Jackal" is the gunboat more directly charged with the duty of preventing illegal trawling in the close vicinity of Aberdeen, he can state how often during the months of December, January, and February, respectively, this boat has been berthed in Aberdeen harbour, and no how many of such occasions she has taken up her mooring inside the dock gates of the harbour; what is the number of officers on board her, and since when has the present officer in charge of her held the appointment; and where arc the gunboats "Brenda" and "Niger" at the present moment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr.A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): As regards the first part of the Member's question, I must refer him to the Admiralty, within whose jurisdiction the matter rests. As regards the second part, I presume, the hon. Member refers to the Fishery Board cruisers "Brenda" and "Norna," and, if so the answer is that the waters patrolled by the "Brenda" are Berwick on-Tweed to Rattray Head, and by the "Nona" the Moray Firth.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY RETURNS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg, to ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland

  1167
  will grant a Return (Fishery Harbours, Scotland) showing the name of each fishery harbour on the coast of Scotland, the name of the county in which it is situated, the date of its construction, the area, the name of the proprietor or authority responsible for its upkeep, its present condition, and the funds derived from the harbour in dues or otherwise for each year since 1890.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: There are no materials at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland to enable such a Return to be framed. There would have to be a special inquiry, and the Secretary for Scotland is unable to see any such public purpose to be served by the Return as to justify ordering such an inquiry to be made.

  IRISH LAND COURT SALES.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the amount of purchase money paid for lands sold by the Judge of the Land Court since the Act of 1896 came into force, under Section 40 and under other powers.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The amount advanced under orders made pursuant to the 40th section of the Act of 1896 is £351,729, and the amount realised by sales to tenants pursuant to agreements sanctioned by the Land Judge is £628,385, making in all £980,114. Those figures are brought down to the end of October last, the latest date to which they are at present available.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many estates have been sold under Section 40 of the Act?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, the holdings are sold separately and the estates are not sold en bloc.

  BANN DRAINAGE BILL.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in consequence of the injury inflicted by the floods on the Bann, he will consider the expediency of reintroducing the Bann Drainage Bill or other remedial measures.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As already stated, I am not prepared to introduce in the present session legislation in this matter.

  ENNIS DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM FINANCE.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that a sum of £934 16s. 2d. has been certified by the Government Auditor as duo to the Ennis District Lunatic Asylum for the capitation grant towards the support of the asylum for the three months ending 21st March, 1899, and to the fact that this debt was acknowledged by the then Secretary to the Treasury, and whether this sum will now be paid immediately.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At the request of my hon. friend, I will reply to this question. This matter has already formed the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the Committee of Management of the Ennis Asylum, and I have nothing to add to the views of the Government has already expressed. The hon. Member has not correctly interpreted the statement made by the late Secretary to the Treasury. For an accurate report of what he did say I would refer to The Parliamentary Debates of 30th April, 1900 [Fourth Series], vol. lxxxii., page 285.

  SEA FISHING— MANUAL OF IRISH STATUTES.
  MR PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table a manual of the various Irish statutes and bye laws regarding sea fishing, similar to the volume issued last week to Members of the House regarding Scotland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, this will be done.

  KILEEE BURIAL CROUND, COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Kilfee burial ground, in the Ballycullen electoral Division of the Rathdrum rural district, county Wicklow, which is under the Rathdrum Rural

  1169
  District Council, is at present unprotected by any fence, and is consequently over run with cattle and sheep, which injure the graves and memorials; and that this cemetery was originally twice its present size, but has been reduced by the owner of the land in which it is situate converting it into a cattle walk; and whether the Local Government Beard will take steps to have this cemetery restored to its original size, and have it properly protected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The clerk of the rural council states that the fencing of this burial ground, which had been broken in places, has now been restored. It is possible that the cemetery was originally larger, but in regard to that matter the Local Government Beard has no information and no jurisdiction.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD FISH CURING INDUSTRY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the Congested Districts Board, in connection with the fish curing industry, require a considerable number of barrels, the Board will ask for tenders from Cork cooperage works, seeing that some coopering firms in that city have special facilities for turning out this class of work.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Cooperages were opened by the Board for the purpose of imparting instruction in barrel making in congested districts, and until the industry has been firmly established I do not think it would be prudent for the Board to withdraw its support from these cooperages.

  DOUGLAS (IRELAND) NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the teacher of Douglas National School, Roll No. 12,875, District 54, sent early in January an order for books to the Beard's stores, and has since got no reply; and that the manager of the school, who wrote more than three weeks since, complaining of the matter, has not yet got a reply; and whether, seeing that on 19th February, a second order was sent from the same and no reply has yet been sent, steps will be
  1170
  taken to place this department on a business-like footing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have called for a Report on this question; but as I have not yet received it, I will ask the hon. Member to repeat the question to-morrow.

  ROXBORO ROAD SCHOOL, LIMERICK.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his statement made recently in Dublin to the effect that only one case was left unfinished by the Educational Endowments Commission was accurate; and can he say what is the position of the Roxboro Road School at Limerick.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I stated correctly that the Judicial Commissioners arrived at the unanimous decision imposed by the Educational Endowments Act of 1885 in all but one case. This is so. In answer to the second paragraph the House has on two separate occasions disapproved of the schemes approved of by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The powers of the Commissioners lapsed on the 31st December, 1897, and Mr. Gregg remains in occupation as a tenant from year to year. There is now no power to frame a new scheme.
  MR. JOYCE: I shall put a further question on this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member will do better to raise it on the Estimates. The matter can hardly be debated by way of question and answer.

  PARSONSTOWN AND PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
  MR ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 29th March, 1897, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland stated in the House of Commons that if a responsible railway-company, such as the Great Southern and Western Company, were got to restore the Parsonstown and Portumna Derelict Railway at a cost of £24,000, and maintain it when restored, the Government would be prepared to advance one-half this sum, £12,000, for that purpose: and that an offer has been made by the International Railway Corporation, Limited, to spend £12,000 on restoring the line, and working and equipping it thereafter; and will he accordingly carry out

  1171
  the promise of his predecessor in office and accept the offer of the International Company.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am aware of the statement made by my predecessor on the date mentioned. In answer to the second paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to my replies to previous questions of the 4th and 7th instant on the same subject.*
  MR. ROCHE: Am I to understand the Government refuse the otter of the International Railway Corporation?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Treasury do not see their way to accept the proposals of the Corporation.

  UNITED IRISH LEAGUE MEETING AT BALLINALEE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain by whose order County Inspector M'Dermott, with District Inspectors Rodwell and Millar, attended by 100 policemen armed with rifles, proceeded to Ballinalee on Sunday last to prevent the East Collumbkille fife and drum band from playing outside the League rooms in Ballinalee, in which the North Longford executive of the United Irish League was holding its monthly meeting; is he aware that these policemen kept following the band up and down the village of Ballinalee, and refused to allow them to stand for a moment at any house; can he explain what was the meaning of such conduct considering that the band had come a long distance merely to exercise; whether he is aware that no public meeting of any kind was intended or attempted, and no person or persons were boycotted or in any way interfered with in the neighbourhood; and whether the County Inspector ordered this display contrary to the advice and wish of his subordinate officers; and will an inquiry be made into all the circumstances of the case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Fifty, not 100, police were assembled at Ballinalee on the occasion referred to; none of these men were armed with rifles. No attempt was made to prevent the two bands present from playing outside the place of meeting or from parading the streets. A few police only accompanied the bands through
  * See pages 392 and 824.
  1172
  the village, which is the course adopted on all such occasions; the greater number of the police were confined to barracks. The force attended by the express order of Government in view of the fact that a large concourse of people was expected to be present and that proper precautions had to be taken.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Was any information sworn that would lead the Government to believe a breach of the peace was expected on that occasion?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. No in formation was sworn. The precautions taken were proper police precautions, which would be taken anywhere in Ireland or elsewhere when a large crowd was expected to assemble.
  MR. FARRELL: Will the cost of this police display fall on the county?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot say without notice, but I should say the mere concentration of police would not involve any charge.

  DUBLIN CITY HOSPITAL FOR DISEASES OF THE SKIN.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Dr. White, surgeon at the City Hospital for Diseases of the Skin, Beresford Place, Dublin, tried to induce Mrs. M'Ginley, a poor Roman Catholic widow, to enter the Protestant ward of the hospital of the South Dublin Union, which would haw meant the registration as Protestants of herself and her four orphan children; whether he will institute an inquiry into the case; and whether he will endeavour to ascertain whether there are in the Protestant ward of the South Dublin Union any Roman Catholics brought there by similar inducements.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hospital referred to is not subject in any way to the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board, and that Department has no authority to institute an inquiry as suggested. The Guardians of the South Dublin Union are perfectly competent to make the inquiry suggested in the last paragraph, if they think it expedient to do so.

  NEWTOWNSTEWART (TYRONE) POLICE BARRACKS.
  MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints from Newtownstewart, North Tyrone, have reached him to the effect that the police barrack there is occupied exclusively by the head constable and his grown-up family, thereby necessitating the other members of the force to reside out of barracks; and whether it is against the regulations of the force that the grown-up families of constables should live in barracks; and, if so, will he be pleased to have such regulations put in force.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, been misinformed. The head constable has six children residing with him in the barrack, and no breach of the regulations has been committed in this respect. The barrack is not exclusively occupied by the family of this officer, and no other members of the force are obliged to live outside the barrack for the reason stated.
  MR. HEMPHILL: As a matter of fact, is not the head constable the only officer residing in the barracks?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not gather that from the information I have received. Anyway there has been no breach of the regulations and therefore there is no need for interference.

  NEWTOWNSTEWART POLICE FORCE— CONSTITUTION.
  *MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the three senior officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Newtownstewart—namely, the head constable, the senior sergeant, and one acting sergeant are Protestants, although Newtownstewart is a place where party disturbances are liable to occur; and whether he will take steps that one of the senior officers at least should be a Roman Catholic.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The head constable and one of the two sergeants are Protestants; the other sergeant is a Roman Catholic. There has been no disturbance of a part nature at Newtownstewart for several years past.

  SHILLELAGH UNION INQUIRIES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. Flinn, Local Government Board Inspector, who recently investigated the charges made by Dr. Bolster against Nurse Joyce, received from the nurse the names of witnesses who could give evidence in her defence; and whether he summoned any of them to attend the Inquiry at Shillelagh; and, if so, how many, and were they examined by Dr. Flinn.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inspector received a list of thirty-four witnesses from Nurse Joyce and of sixteen witnesses from Dr. Bolster. In both instances Dr. Flinn summoned only those witnesses whose evidence related directly to the subject matter of the Inquiry. Eight of the nurse's witnesses were summoned, of whom seven were examined; and nine of Dr. Bolster's witnesses were summoned, of whom six were examined. Those not examined left the Inquiry before it was concluded, and no desire was expressed that they should be recalled and examined.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is Dr. Flinn a legal expert as to whether evidence is material?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The others were only witnesses as to character.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On the Estimate for the Irish Local Government Beard I shall call attention to the conduct of Dr. Flinn.

  SOUTH LEITRIM UNION.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received resolutions from the Leitrim County Council and Mohill District Council asking to have the unions in South Leitrim amalgamated with a view to using one of the workhouses used as an auxiliary asylum; and whether, in consequence of this proposal, the Lord Lieutenant will withhold his sanction from the proposed loan of £40,000 for enlarging Sligo asylum, the chief cost of maintaining which falls on the ratepayer's of Leitrim and Sligo.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The county councils of Sligo and Leitrim, the

  1175
  two counties constituting the Asylum District, have not yet sanctioned the proposed loan of £40,000 for the enlargement of the asylum, and until the proposal has been considered by them the question will not come before the Lord Lieutenant.

  WORKMEN'S HOUSES AT BOYLE.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any steps have been taken to expedite the issuing of a loan of £1,800 to the Boyle Town Commissioners for the building of houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, the Act for this purpose having been passed last August, and the loan sanctioned by the Local Government Board.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; special steps were taken to expedite the preparation of the deed of mortgage which was forwarded on the 6th instant for execution by Boyle Town Commissioners. An issue on account of the loan will be made immediately after the due execution of the deed.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN IRELAND—FAIR WAGES CLAUSE.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a resolution, passed by the United Trades Council and Labour League of Dublin, which stated that much difficulty is experienced in obtaining particulars relating to Government contracts in Ireland, and in identifying the persons entrusted therewith, and also that complaints have been made as regards the carrying out of the Fair Wages Resolution; and whether, in order to remove these difficulties, he would order that concise particulars of all Government contracts, together with the names of the persons whose tenders are accepted, be set out in the Labour Gazette; that a penalty of not less than five per cent, on the amount of the tender be imposed on all contractors who fail to comply with the Fair Wages Resolution in executing the work; and that the names of all such contractors be published.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. I am afraid it would be impossible to arrange for the publication
  1176
  of particulars of all Government contracts in the Labour Gazette. A clause providing for a fine of the nature suggested has been included in certain recent contracts, but before extending it further I think it desirable to have some experience of its working. Up to the present time no case has arisen for imposing penalties under it. When such cases arise, I shall have no objection to giving the particulars asked for.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many complaints have been brought before this House of the way in which the contractors carry out the Fair Wages resolution? Will the hon. Gentleman inquire further?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member has a complaint to make about any particular contract, and will give me such details as will enable me to identify the case, I shall be happy to have it investigated, but I cannot set out on a roving commission on the general statement that there are complaints.

  REGISTRATION OF PATENTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the rules as to registration under the terms of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883–1888, can be purchased in Ireland; and, if so, will he state where they can be obtained.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The rules of 1890 are included in the volume of Statutory Rules for that year, which may be obtained of Messrs. Hodges, Figgis, and Company, of 104, Grafton Street, Dublin, the agents of His Majesty's Stationery Office for the sale of Statutory Rules, Since 1893 rules under the Patent, etc., Act have been treated as Statutory Rules, and as such may be purchased in separate form from Messrs. Hodges. The Patent Agents' Rules for 1899 were printed as a Parliamentary paper, and in that form may also be purchased in Dublin of Messrs. Hodges. When a reprint of the rules of 1890 is required they will be printed as Statutory Rules in separate form and put on sale in Ireland.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL— HOUSING SCHEMES.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the refusal of the Local Government Board to accede to the plea of the London County Council that it may be permitted to spread the repayment of its housing schemes loans over 100 years, the said refusal being based on the fact that a previous Parliament has disagreed with the proposal, the Government will afford facilities for the present Parliament to express an opinion upon the matter.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot promise a day for the discussion which the hon. Member suggests.

  SWISS MILITARY SYSTEM.
  Mr. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will appoint a Commission to inquire into and report upon the military system of Switzerland, such inquiry to be directed not only to the character, efficiency, and cost of the system, but also to its effects upon the industry, physique, and morals of the population.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think much would be gained by the Commission desired by my hon. friend. There is a great deal of information on the subject in the possession of the War Office at the present time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LOUGH: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will not take Vote A of the Army Estimates before Thursday, considering the importance of the statement made by the Secretary for War?
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he proposes to take the Report stage of the Vote on Account, and if any time will be permitted for its discussion?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the lion. Member for West Islington, I must say that I do not quite follow the argument involved in his question. There has been an interval since Friday night which has enabled the blouse and
1178
the country to consider the important statement of my right hon. friend. I hope, therefore, we shall proceed with the discussion as rapidly as possible. As regards the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, there are Army and Navy subjects of the first importance requiring to be discussed, and I, therefore, do not, at present, see any opportunity of taking the Report stage of the Vote on Account.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Then it will not be taken to-night?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With regard to the discussion on the Army Estimates, will the right hon. Gentleman not agree to postpone getting the Speaker out of the Chair until to-morrow, at least, in order that we may have time for the full discussion of the statement? Let me point out—[Cries of "Order!"]—well, perhaps I. had better put it in an interrogative form in order to keep in order. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact which is present to our minds that there are two aspects of this question, the aspect of general policy and that of detailed policy? Could we not have the general policy discussed before Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair, so as to leave us free for the consideration of details afterwards?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If that were the general understanding on both sides of the House. I am of opinion that it would be a very convenient arrangement to abstain altogether from discussing details at this stage, and to deal with nothing but details al the later stage. I do not propose, however, to try to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair until to-morrow, in any case.
Sir JAMES JOICEY: May I ask whether, considering the importance of the statement made by the Secretary for War, the right hon. Gentleman will, for the convenience of the House, have the speech printed and circulated?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That has never been done, and I hope it never will be.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to prevent any possibility of mistake, but does not the right hon. Gentleman go a little too far when he says that at the later stage we are to speak on nothing but details?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I mean as far as possible.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope there will be no misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman has no objection, I take it, to our discussing the Army Estimates to-night with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, it being understood the debate is not to be concluded to-night?
Sir JAMES JOICEY: There is a precedent for what I asked the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has printed and circulated his statement before now?
Mr. JAMES LOWTHER: What is the business for Thursday?
Mr. A.. J. BALFOUR: I thought the lion. Member for Chester-le-Street wanted the speech of my right hon. friend the Secretary for War laid as a Parliamentary paper in the same way as, I believe, in France, speeches which meet with the general favour in the French Chamber are printed and circulated. I do not think that that would be a happy precedent to set. With regard to the business for Thursday, that, of course, depends on the progress made with the Army Estimates. Personally, I anticipate that the discussion on those Estimates will continue on Thursday.
Sir JOHN COLOMB: When are the Navy Estimates likely to be taken?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot tell my hon. and gallant friend.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: With reference to the course of business, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. He is probably aware that notice has been given of a motion of a very important character on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the
1180
Civil Service Estimates. Can he give us any idea when he proposes to move the Speaker out of the Chair on those Estimates? It will be essential to the convenience of a large number of Members interested that we should have adequate notice. Last year in a similar case the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us a week's notice.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I will do my very best to give notice. But I do not anticipate that, in any case, we shall propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates before the 25th March.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Will it be before Easter?
Me. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be more convenient to get it done before Easter, but I cannot promise.
Mk. TULLY: I have an Amendment on the Report of Supply closured last Tuesday. If it is not to be taken tonight, can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be taken?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only say it will not be taken to-night.
Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: Arising out of the discussion as to the way in which the Army Estimates are to be taken, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when a similar arrangement was made on a former occasion, the Chairman of Committees ruled out of order any debate on details, because some of them had been mentioned in the discussion with Mr. Speaker in the Chair?
[No answer was given.]
Mr. DALZIEL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say-when he proposes to take the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: As soon as I get an opportunity.

EAST INDIA LOAN (GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY DEBENTURES).
Committee to consider of authorising the Secretary of State in Council of

1181
India to raise money in the United Kingdom for paying off or redeeming Debentures of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company on the Security of the Revenues of India (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow. (The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

CIVIL LIST.
Copy presented, of Accounts and Estimates relating to the Civil List [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Paragraph in the King's Speech respecting the Civil List at the opening of Parliament, and His Majesty's Message of the fifth day of this instant March, read as follows:—
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The demise of the Crown renders it necessary that a renewed provision shall lie made for the Civil List. I place unreservedly at your disposal those hereditary revenues which were so placed by My predecessor: and I have commanded that the Papers necessary for a full consideration of tin subject shall be laid before you."
"Edward R.
"His Majesty being desirous of making competent provision for the honourable support and maintenance of His Son, the Duke of Cornwall and York. His Daughter-in-law, the Duchess of Cornwall and York, and His Daughters, the Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife, the Princess Victoria, and Princess Charles of Denmark, and being further desirous that similar provision should be made for Her Majesty the Queen in the event of Her surviving Him, and for the Duchess of Cornwall and York in the event of Her surviving the Duke of Cornwall and York, recommends the consideration thereof to His Majesty's faithful Commons, and relies on their attachment to adopt such measures as may be suitable to the occasion."
*The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It will be unnecessary for me to take up the time of the House in explaining the reasons why it is incumbent on the House to take some action
1182
on the gracious Message from the Throne which has just been read. I will simply quote the provisions of the Civil List of 1837, passed on the accession of Her late Majesty, by which it was declared, in precise conformity with similar Acts of previous reigns, that the several hereditary revenues of the Crown which had become payable to Her late Majesty on her accession should be carried to the Consolidated Fund for her life, and that in lieu thereof a fixed revenue should be paid to Her Majesty called the Civil List, but that on and after her decease this arrangement should end, and that the hereditary revenues should be payable to her heirs and successors—a period of six months, however, being allowed to elapse during which it would be possible for Parliament to make a fresh arrangement on this important matter.
As the House is aware, Sir, His Majesty the King has, in precise conformity with the course adopted by Queen Victoria, placed unreservedly at our disposal the hereditary revenues so placed by her; and it is therefore necessary for us to consider afresh, as at the commencement of the previous reign, the provision of the Civil List for the Crown. The provision made by the Act of 1889 for the children of His Majesty, then the Prince of Wales, lapses at the end of six months after the decease of Queen Victoria; and therefore we are also invited to deal with the position of the son and daughters of the King, which, in conformity with past practice, will be dealt with outside the Civil List, as well as the possibility that Hex Majesty the Queen may survive His Majesty and the Duchess of Cornwall and York may survive the Duke of Cornwall and York. It is clear, I think, that Parliament must take some action in the present condition of affairs, and the only question it is necessary for me to bring before the House is the method I of procedure we should adopt with regard to it. We have a series of precedents, which, even if there were no reasons in its favour, I think sufficiently: dictate to us the course we should adopt. At the accession of William IV., and again at the accession of Her late Majesty, and lastly in 1889 on an analogous subject, the House of Commons decided to appoint a strong Select Com-

1183
mittee to investigate the whole subject before any resolution was submitted to Parliament
It is not my intention this evening to state to the House the proposals which, on the responsibility of the Government, will be made with regard to the new Civil List. Those proposals will be made in the first instance to the Select Committee. The Committee will also have before it papers which I shall lay on the Table to-night, giving a full account in every detail of the amount of the expenditure of the Civil List during Her late Majesty's reign, and also of the net hereditary revenues received by the nation for the same time; and, further, the sums payable to the Sovereign and the Prince of Wales each year from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall respectively. We shall produce to the Committee any further information bearing on this subject which they may desire; and, furnished with that information, they will be in a position to examine our proposals with the scrutiny which such proposals properly require and to report to the House. Their report will, of course, contain not merely their conclusions, but the information with which they have been supplied. On that report we shall base resolutions which will be submitted to the House and form the foundation of the Bill. I think it will be seen, therefore, that there will be full and ample opportunity for the discussion of the subject in the House of Commons as soon as the materials are placed before the House on which alone their conclusions can properly be based. I trust that when that time comes there will not be any wide difference of opinion among us.
Many subjects which in old times were matters of great controversy with regard to the Civil list have now disappeared. There were gross abuses on the Civil List in former days which have happily been removed; and now, I think, there is a universal agreement in this—that the Civil List shall not contain anything but that which is necessary for the proper maintenance of the dignity and state of the Crown, and also of the households of their Majesties. And, Sir, we also stand in a favourable position in one other respect to which I must
1184
briefly allude. In former reigns great and frequent applications were made to Parliament, after the Civil List had been fixed, for the payment of the debts of the Sovereign or of members of the Royal Family. Her late Majesty's Civil List was fixed sixty-four years ago; and, Sir,, although it is a small matter among all that our nation owes to our late Queen, yet it will not be improper for me to remind the House on this occasion that during all these years—and in spite of the fact that during the later years of her reign her expenditure was greater than the revenue which Parliament had provided—not one application was made by our late Queen to Parliament for anything in addition to the Civil List provided by Parliament. If we may look back to the past with satisfaction— and it is a matter of no small importance as affecting the relations between the Crown, Parliament, and the people—I think we may also look to the future with confidence. His present Majesty has for many years occupied an exceptional position. For more than a generation he has, as Prince of Wales, from circumstances which will be fresh in our minds, had to perform to an exceptional extent the duties of Royalty, and that necessarily devolved upon him exceptional expenditure as compared with that which would be ordinarily required from the Heir-Apparent to the Crown. His annuity from Parliament was fixed more than thirty years ago; and that annuity, with the revenues of the Duchy, forming together an income not large when compared with the incomes of not a few private individuals among us, has proved sufficient for his present Majesty to perform all the exceptional duties to which I have referred in a manner for which he is entitled to the gratitude of the country, and to deal with all those who were in any way dependent upon him in a spirit of generous consideration for their comfort and welfare which has been an example, to the nation at large. Therefore, though when the time comes for us to settle the precise terms of the fresh bargain, so to speak, which we have now to make with the Crown, there may be differences of opinion as to the sum which has to be provided, yet we may all agree in this—that the liberality of Parliament will not be abused.

1185
There is another matter on which we may all agree, and that is the principle which should govern our action. The basis of our proposals will necessarily be the Civil List of her late Majesty, with such variations as the altered circumstances and the experience of more than sixty years may show to be necessary. Among these altered circumstances the most important is that his present Majesty is blessed with a Queen Consort who, ever since she first came among us from her northern home, has charmed the hearts of the people, and who is preeminently possessed of all those qualifications that can most adorn the social centre of the Empire. We shall remember, too, I think, with one accord that our King is not only King of the United Kingdom, but the head of a world-wide Empire. There may still be among us different theoretical opinions as to the best form of government; but surely none will deny that there never was a time when the constitutional monarchy was more universally popular in the Empire than the present, or that it is incumbent, as a matter of honour, upon the people to provide adequately for the dignity of the head of the State. And yet, Sir, I believe we shall all be agreed that this ought to be done without extravagance; for there is something in the quiet temper of our people which, though all of them would desire a splendid Court, would yet be entirely out of harmony with extravagant waste and mere senseless or useless display. Sir, we shall endeavour to make our proposals in that spirit—in a spirit of justice to the Crown on the one side, and to the people on the other; and I believe that, if they are found to be so framed, the taxpayers of this country will not grudge in the smallest degree to provide adequately and properly for the dignity and the honour of a Monarch who has been always personally popular among us and who, by his every act and word since his accession has shown his desire and his capacity worthily to tread in the footsteps of the best and most beloved Queen that has ever reigned in this realm. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider so much of His Majesty's
1186
Speech to both Houses at the opening j of Parliament as relates to the Civil List and His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 5th March relating to Grants to Her Majesty the Queen and Members of His Majesty's Family."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The course which the right hon. Gentleman suggests for the approval of the House is in accordance with the best recent precedents, and is recommended by a consideration for the dignity and convenience as well as for the interests of the House and of the country. I shall therefore say no more than that I beg to second the motion.
Mr. JOHN REDMONDwho had the following Amendment on the Paper—
"That this House declines to take any steps in connection with the Civil List until His Majesty's Government announce their intention of introducing legislation to alter the declaration made by the Sovereign on ascending the Throne, such declaration being grossly offensive to His Majesty's Catholic subjects,"
said: As the members of the Irish party in this House decline to appoint any of their number to serve on this Committee, contrary to the practice in reference to the appointment of Committees in this House. I think it would be well that I should have the opportunity of explaining shortly to the House why they take up that attitude. I confess, Sir, for my part, it is a matter of regret-that upon an occasion such as this we have been forced by the rules of order to bring up the question which is in my mind, hut we have had no other course open to us. It was utterly impossible for us to lie party to the appointment of this Committee, or to take any steps in connection with the Civil List, until we had some assurance that the declaration which was taken by the Sovereign on ascending the Throne, and which by, I think, universal admission is of a character grossly offensive to many millions of the subjects of this Empire, and to some hundreds of millions of Catholics throughout the world, was to be made the subject of review and amendment on the part of the Government.
*Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment I which the lion, and learned Gentleman

1187
has placed upon the Paper will not be in order; and it follows that any observations addressed to the question whether the declaration made by His Majesty under statute ought or ought not to be repealed by Parliament will also be irrelevant and out of order.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I bow at once to your ruling, but I am sure you will not think I am guilty of any disrespect to you when I say that I deeply regret that that ruling puts me in the position of having to offer opposition to the appointment of this Committee without being able to state the reasons. It may seem to some people a blind opposition. Of course, if the Government are in a position to announce any change of attitude on the question I have alluded to, the situation will be altered. I have seen a statement in the newspapers that such is the intention of His Majesty's Government. If they are in a position to make such an announcement, of course the difficulties with which I find myself faced will, to a very large extent, disappear, but failing the obtaining of a declaration of the character I have indicated from the Government, and as by the rules of order my mouth is shut from giving my reasons for the opposition, I can only fall back on opposition itself; and I beg to say that at every stage in regard to the appointment of the Committee, and every step taken in connection with the Civil List, I will offer a vigorous opposition, unless we obtain justice in this matter.
The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand, Sir, from your ruling that it would be out of order to discuss the question of the Oath which has been taken by His Majesty according to statute, and which, of course, will not require to be taken again, even if the law remains unaltered, during the present reign. While it would be out of order to discuss that on the present motion, the hon. Gentleman has put to me a question as to the attitude of the Government. I do not know whether I am not going beyond, perhaps, what is usual in this House in referring to proceedings in the other House. But it is a fact, I understand, that the
1188
Prime Minister is to be asked in the other House whether the Government have any objection to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of the Oath. So far as the Government are concerned no opposition to that Committee will be offered.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: What sort of Committee?
MR. A.. J. BALFOUR: A Committee on which, at all events. Peers of the hon. Gentleman's faith will be fully represented.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean a Committee of Peers only?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: So far as I am concerned I see no objection to a joint Committee. We shall offer no opposition if that is the desire.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Then, Sir, in consequence of that statement I desire to say that while the Irish party will not take any part in serving on this Committee, and while we will not vote for it, under the circumstances we will abstain from voting against the appointment of the Committee, and reserve to ourselves the right, when the main question comes up for discussion on the Report of this Committee, to take what action we feel inclined to take, having, as we then will have, in our possession full information as to the proceedings of the Committee.
*Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in submitting this motion to the House, has justified it, among other reasons, on the ground that it is necessary to investigate the whole subject. The motion as framed will not permit of the whole subject being investigated, and it will not enable the whole of the facts of the case to be placed before the country. I will move to add the following words to the resolution as printed on the Paper:
"And to prepare a Report to be presented to this House showing in detail every item of expenditure, including salaries, paid from public funds towards the support and maintenance of the Royal Family." I submit that motion

1189
for this reason chiefly—the Civil List does not, and does not pretend to, exhaust the expenditure upon the maintenance and support of the Royal Family. Even so astute an investigator as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had to confess himself puzzled in seeking to trace all the items which might properly he placed under the head of Royal expenditure. It may be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that there are differences of opinion as to the form the Head of the State should assume, but I think there will be no difference of opinion as to the desirability of presenting to the nation an honest and straightforward statement of the cost of maintaining the Head of the State, under whatever name he may be. When the proper moment arrives I will have something to say concerning the Crown lands alleged to be given in exchange for the Civil List. I may at this stage point out, in reply to the statement frequently made, that the late Civil List was the lowest ever paid to any Sovereign in this country, that such is not the case. The first Civil List framed—for William III.—provided that £700,000 should be set apart for the purposes of the Civil List; but Members, in comparing with that the £385,000 of the late Civil List, must not overlook the fact that, with the exception of the expenditure upon the Army and Navy, the £700,000 voted to William III, covered the entire cost of the civil government of the country. It was a sum voted not merely for the maintenance of Royalty, but, as its name implies, to cover the entire cost of the various departments of the civil administration. At the present time, anyone desirous of ascertaining the cost of the support and maintenance of the Royal Family has to search through the Civil List, annuities, pensions, salaries, expenditure upon yachts, and expenditure upon Royal trips, and various items which it is almost impossible to trace at all. For this reason I beg to submit the Amendment which I have read, its object being to secure a full and frank statement of account, which shall be presented to the nation, and without which his House is not in a position to settle the Civil List when the question comes before it. I beg to move.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question, to add the words 'and to prepare a Report for presentation to this House showing in detail every item of expenditure from public funds towards the support and maintenance of the Royal Family."—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
*Sir M. HICKS BEACH: I am not sure that I entirely appreciate what the hon. Member desires by adding these words to the motion, but I can assure him of this, that it is our intention to afford the fullest information to the Committee which any Member of it may desire on this subject. I happen to know, from a question asked by the hon. Member for Northampton of my right hon. friend near me, that his attention has been directed to what I understand to be the desire of the hon. Member. And as the hon. Member for Northampton is proposed to be a member of the Committee, I have no doubt he will request the information in Committee. I trust, therefore, it will not he necessary to press this Amendment.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I understand that the desire expressed in the motion is already covered by the terms of the resolution. I have no desire to put the House to the trouble of a division, and if I am to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the terms of the resolution are already wide enough to cover the object I have expressed, I will withdraw my Amendment.
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Of course. I cannot he absolutely certain that the hon. Member will be satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider so much of His Majesty's Speech to both Houses at the opening of Parliament as relates to the Civil List, and His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 5th March

1191
relating to Grants to Her Majesty the Queen and Members of His Majesty's Family.
Ordered, That the several Papers presented this day relating to the Civil List he referred to the Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee List of Twenty-one Members.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. A. J. Balfour be a member of the said Committee."
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Personally I have no objection whatever to the First Lord of the Treasury being a member of this Committee, as he probably is one of the persons most fitted to serve thereon, but I take this opportunity of saying that in my opinion the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to serve on a Committee to deal with the expenditure of large sums of money every year is at the present time not appropriate, seeing that there are millions and millions of His Majesty's subjects dying of famine in India, and nothing is being done by the Government for them.
Mr. DALZIEL: I think we might have some sort of explanation from the Leader of the House as to the lines upon which he has proceeded in the composition of this Committee. It is usual in Select Committees—although this, of course, is not a party question—that the Government should have a majority of one. It seems to me that the Committee ought to represent, more than it does, the different countries. This is practically an English Committee. Ireland has one member, Wales has no member at all, and Scotland has two members, one of whom is the Leader of the Opposition. Scotland, at all events, ought to be better represented, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs is on the Committee in his official capacity as Leader of the Opposition, so that we have only one unofficial member to represent the whole of Scotland. It seems to me that the Government should not be as well represented as they are, and I will even say that the Front Opposition Bench should not be so well represented. I do not
1192
wish to divide against the right hon. Gentleman's name being included, but I do desire to protest against the composition of the Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Member will not go away with the impression that any unusual machinery has been used in the appointment of this Committee. We have followed the ordinary practice. The Government do not appoint the Committee. It is appointed by machinery with which the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly acquainted. The majority of Welsh Members sit on the other side of the House, and their interests should be looked after by light hon. Gentlemen opposite.
*Mr. TENNANT: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about Scotland. I rose for the purpose of opposing my hon. friend on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman is a most admirable representative of Scotland, although be has the misfortune to be an English Member. But I do think Scotland has not been well treated in this matter, and that the Committee of Selection might have thought fit to propose some other Member from the country to which I have the honour to belong.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: As the First Lord of the Treasury has referred to the fact that the Welsh Members have made no complaint the composition of this Committee—
A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say so.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I think so.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that, as the House knows, we on this side of the House do not interfere with the selection of Members on the other side. The majority of Welsh Members are on that side of the House, and therefore their interests, if they have been neglected, which I do not at all admit, should have been looked after by gentlemen sitting on that side of the House, not on this.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: That is exactly the fact I was leading up to. The Welsh Members are satisfied, because my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth and my hon. friend the Member for North Monmouth are to be Members of the Committee, and they look upon that as an admission that Monmouthshire is in future to be regarded as a part of Wales.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will this be a private Committee, and will a record be kept?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The ordinary record will be kept, but the proceedings will, of course, be of a private nature.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Bartley, Sir John Brunner, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Sir William Hart-Dyke, Sir Henry Fowler, Sir William Harcourt be other Members of the said Committee," put and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Sir Samuel Hoare be one other Member of the said Committee."
MR. DALZIEL: I need scarcely say that I have no personal objection to the hon. Gentleman whose name is now proposed. Under ordinary circumstances he would be a most excellent member of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman represents an English constituency, and my sole object in opposing his selection is to move the insertion of the name of the hon. Member for Berwickshire as representing Scotland.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move the insertion of a name. Names cannot be moved without notice.
MR. DALZIEL: Then I beg to move the omission.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member need not move the omission. He can negative the motion.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 300; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 52.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir Alex.F.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire

Cust, Henry John C.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Campbell-Banneman, Sir H.

Dewar,TR(T'rHmlets,St.Geo.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Causton, Richard Knight

Dickson, Charles Scott

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Asquit J, Rt. Hn HerbertHenry

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Bagot, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain. Rt. Hon J.(Birm.

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chamberlain,J. Austen (Worc.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Duke, Henry Edward

Baldwin, Alfred

Chapman. Edward

Duncan, James H.

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

Charrington, Spencer

Dunn, Sir William

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dyke,Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Edwards, Frank

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Coddington, Sir William

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Bartley, George C. T.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Ellios, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Ellis, John Edward

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Emmott, Alfred

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

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Fardell, Sir T. George

Beckett, Ernest William

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Bigwood, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w

Fenwick, Charles

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

Boulnois, Edmund

Craig, Robert Hunter

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Cranborne, Viscount

Fisher, William Hayes

Bowles,T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

Cremer, William Randal

Fison, Frederick William

Brand, Hon. Arthur G

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Levy, Maurice

Rentoul, James Alexander

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Garfit, William

Long, Col. Chas. (Evesham)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans

Long,Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lowe, Francis William

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum,. Penr

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Round, James

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'th)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Graham, Henry Robert

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

Russell, T. W.

Grant, Corrie

Macdona, John Cumming

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maconochie, A. W.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Greene, Sir E. W.(BurySt. Ed.

M.Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gretton, John

M 'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh W

Scott,Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Gunter, Colonel

M'Kenna, Reginald

Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

Hain, Edward

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Malcolm, Ian

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Markham, Arthur Basil

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Hamilton, Rt.Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Sincair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Mather, William

Smith. Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Maxwell,RtHnSirHE(Wigton

Smith, JamesParker(Lanarks)

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Mellor,Rt. Hon. John William

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Soares, Ernest J.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Speneer,Rt. Hn. CR(Northants

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stanley,Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stevenson, Francis S.

Heaton, John Henniker

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Strachey, Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Stroyan, John

Hoare,Ed.Brodie(Hampstead)

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hobhouse,Henry(Somerset,E.

Morrison, James Archibald

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hogg, Lindsay

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUniv

Holland, William Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings

Hope,J.F(Sheffield,Brig'htside

Muntz, Philip A.

Thomas,J A(GlamorganGower

Horner, Frederick William

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

Thorburn, Sir' Walter

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Hy.

Murray, Col.Wyndham(Bath)

Thornton, Percy M.

Hoult, Joseph

Myers, William Henry

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Valentin, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Warner, Thos, Courtenay T.

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney

Kearley, Hudson E.

Palmes, Walter (Salisbury)

Welby, Lt-Col. ACE (Taunlon)

Kennaway,Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Wharton, Rt.Hon.JohnLloyd

Kenyon-Slaney,Col.W. (Salop.

Pemberton, John S. G.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Kimber, Henry

Perks, Robert William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Philipps, John Wynford

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Knowles, Lees

Pickard, Benjamin

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(B'm

Labouchere, Henry

Pilkington, Richard

Wills, Sir Frederick

Lambert, George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wilson,FredW (Norfolk, Mid)

Lambton, Hon. Fred. Wm.

Plummer, Walter R.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Grant

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wodehouse,Hn.Armine(Essex

Leeky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Ed. H.

Price, Robert John

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

Lee,Capt.AH(Hants,Fareham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Purvis, Robert

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Pym, C. Guy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Leighton, Stanley

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Leng, Sir John

Reid, James (Greenock)

NOES.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Caldwell, James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Black, Alexander William

Crombie, John William

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Brown, GeorgeM.(Edinburgh)

Dike, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Caine, William Sproston

Elibank, Master of

Jacoby, James Alfred

1196

1197

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal

Yoxall, James Henry

Morton, Edw.J.C.(Devonport)

Tennant, Harold John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wallace, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Reid,SirR.Threshie (Dumfries

Weir, James Galloway

Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Eugene Wason.

Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

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

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ordered, That Mr. Jackson be one other Member of the Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir James Kitson be one other Member of the Committee."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
*Mr. KEIR HARDIEsaid he rose to move the omission of the name of Sir James Kitson. In the event of this name being omitted lie wished to give notice that lie would move to insert the name of the hon. Member for Battersea. He thought that it would be universally accepted by the House that there should he one direct representative of the work
ing classes on the Committee, and he knew of no one who better represented the working classes than his lion, colleague and friend the Member for Battersea. He understood that Sir James Kitson had been nominated for the Committee by the Opposition. He was surprised that the Opposition in nominating Members of the Committee should have overlooked such representatives of labour as the hon. Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for Normanton, to whom they owed so much.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes. 307; Noes, 17. (Division List No. 53.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex. F.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dunn, Sir William

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Causton, Richard Knight

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Edwards, Frank

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatten

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Asher, Alexander

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.

Ellis, John Edward

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Evans, Sir FrancisH.(Maidst.)

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chapmar, Edward

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Charrington, Spencer

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fenwick, Charles

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

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

Baird, John George Alexander

Coddington, Sir William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Baldwin, Alfred

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Cohen, Benjamin L.

Fison, Frederick William

Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW(Leeds

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Banbury, Frederick George

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Fitzroy,Hn. Edward Algernon

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bartley, George C. T.

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Garfit, William

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

Craig, Robert Hunter

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herb. John

Beckett, Ernest William

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bigwood, James

Crombie, John William

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r H'mlets)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gorst,Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Boulnois, Edmund

Cust, Henry John C.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Graham, Henry Robert

Bowles, T.Gibson King's Lynn

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chathm

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)

Green, WaIfordD (Wednesbury

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Dewar, TR(T'r H'mlets,S.Geo.

Greene,Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gretton, John

Brown Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dimsdale, Sir Jos. Cockfield

Gunter, Colonel

Bryce, Rt Hon. James

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hain, Edward

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dixon-Hartland, SirFd. Dixon

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Burns, John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG (Mid'x.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

Caine, William Sproston

Doxford, SirWm. Theodore

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Hardy, Laurence (K'nt,Ashf'rd

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Majendie, James A. H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Malcolm, Ian

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Harris,FLeverton(Tynemouth

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mather, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Heaton, John Henniker

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John Wm.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sine lair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Hoare, Edw,Brodie (Hampstd.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hobhouse,Henry (Somerset,E.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Hogg, Lindsay

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Smith, JamesParker (Lanarks.

Holland, William Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Hope, J. F(Sheffield,Brightsd.

Moon, Edward Robert Racy

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Horner, Frederick William

More, Robt, Jasper (Shropsh.

Spencer, Rt.Hn.CR(N'rthants.

Houldsworth, Sir William H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

Hoult, Joseph

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Howard, J. (Mid., Tottenham)

Morrison, James Archibald

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

Stroyan, John

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Mount, William Arthur

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Muntz, Philip A.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Murray,RtHnA Grabam (Bute

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Joicey, Sir James

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Talbot, Rt.Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUni.

Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea

Murray, Col.Wyndham(Bath)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Myers, William Henry

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Kearley, Hudson E.

Nicholson, William Graham

Thornton, Percy M.

Kennaway,Rt. Hn. SriJohnH.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Kenyon-Slaney,Col.W (Salop)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Valencia, Viscount

Kimber, Henry

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wallace, Robert

Knowles, Lees

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lambert, George

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Wanklyn James Leslie

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

Lawson, John Grant

Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

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

Penn, John

Mason, John C. (Orkney)

Lee, Capt. A H (Hants,Fareham

Perks, Robert William

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Philipps, John Wynford

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Pilkington, Richard

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Leighton, Stanley

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Leng, Sir John

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-n.-Lyne

Leveson-Gower, Fred N. S.

Plunmer, Walter R.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Levy, Maurice

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lewis, John Herbert

Pretyman, Ernest George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Price, Robert John

Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell- (Bir.

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wills, Sir Frederick

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

Purvis, Robert

Wilson,Fred.W.(Norfolk,Mid

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pym, C. Guy

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lowe, Francis William

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wilson. J. W.(Worcestersh.N.

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent

Reckitt, Harold James

Wodehouse,Hn.Armine(Essex

Lucas, Col Francis(Lowestoft)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmonuth

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Macartney, Rt.Hn.WG Ellison

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Macdona, John Cumming

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Ropner, Col. Robert

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinb'h,W.)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Round, James

NOES.

Allen, Chas. P. (Gloue., Stroud

Kinloch, Sir John GeorgeSmyth

Tennant, Harold John

Brown, GeorgeM. (Edinburgh)

Morton,Ed w. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgn, Gower

Caldwell, James

Murphy, J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Pickard, Benjamin

Elibank, Master of

Russell, T. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Grant, Corrie

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Cremer.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Ordered, That Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Macartney, Mr. M'Kenna, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. Renshaw, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Warr, and Mr. Wharton be other Members of the Committee.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (REPORTS OF MONEY COMMITTEES).
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg now to move the Sessional Order which stands in my name. This is a Sessional Order which has been in force for many years in the House, and for the last six years it has been immediately passed without discussion or division. It is a necessary rule in cases in which special arrangements have to be made. The effect of it will be, not to increase the twenty-three days allotted to Supply, including Report of Supply, but to extend the length of time that will be available for the discussions by exempting them from the operation of the Twelve o'clock Rule. It has worked well in the past under different Administrations and under different conditions.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means and other Committees authorising the expenditure of public money may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
*Mr. JOHN ELLISsaid that this was another of the rather numerous interferences by the Leader of the House with the Standing Orders. The House had only been sitting some twenty days, and there had already been five motions by the right hon. Gentleman interfering with or suspending the Standing Orders. He appreciated all that the right hon. Gentleman had said in regard to the motion having been passed more or less without discussion during the last six years. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Twelve o' clock Rule,
1202
but really there was no such rule. He remembered very well when they were discussing the Standing Order that the right hon. the Member for Wolverhampton pointed out what would happen, namely, that the House would accept the Standing Order as meaning an adjournment at twelve o'clock, and that that would produce inconvenience so far as urgent business was concerned. The prediction of the right hon. Gentleman had been amply fulfilled. They had put into the hands of any one of the 670 Members the possibility and power of stopping all business after twelve o'clock. Of course the Government found that that was a state of things that they could not put up with for a moment; and the Amendment was to take away from the individual Member the power of stopping business at twelve o'clock. They could all understand that the right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment in the interest of a certain class of business which must be got through by the 31st March. This was an altogether exceptional session. Everybody knew that finance would dominate this session, and possibly the next, to the exclusion of everything else. They would have to deal with the most extraordinary and unparalleled demands on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the purse of the taxpayer, and every other subject would practically be set aside. The Report of Supply was one of the opportunities of criticising the Administration.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: This motion, if I might interrupt the hon. Member, is to increase and not to diminish the amount of time given by the Government.
*MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he had noticed there fell from the Chair the other afternoon at question time an intimation that certain matters ought to be dealt with in Supply rather than by question and answer. Now, by the motion it was suggested that these discussions should go on through the small hours of the morning. The light hon. Gentleman said he was increasing the time for' discussion, but if so he was doing so after midnight, and there were other ways of doing it without such a course.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I did not make it quite clear when I spoke just now, but I think I can make it so. In the session there are only twenty-three days for Supply, including Report of Supply. Those twenty-three days, if you commence Supply at four o'clock, only contain eight hours each between that time and twelve o'clock. If you pass this rule the hours of those twenty-three days will be increased, which is a pure gain to the House for discussion and criticism of the Government.
*Mr. JOHN ELLISsaid that when in Opposition the Leader of the House once declared this very motion to be a considerable interference with the ancient privileges of Supply, and so it was. He acknowledged the need of the resolution up to Easter, and with that object he moved an Amendment limiting the application of the motion "until Easter."
Dr. FARQUHARSONformally seconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"After the first word 'That,' to insert the words 'until Easter.'"—(Mr. John Ellis.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'until Easter' be there inserted."
Mr. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he viewed with some jealousy any attempt to override the letter and spirit of what was known as the Twelve o'clock Rule, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, owing to the force of circumstances, had been a very great offender in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman said that by the House sitting until two or three in the morning it would derive two or three hours benefit for the discussion of financial business.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no; the House, in the one case, will have twenty-three days for the discussion of Supply. If you do not pass this rule you will have no more, but if the rule is passed the hours of those days will be increased.
Mr. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think
1204
he was conferring a benefit on the House by allowing it to sit up to the small hours of the morning. He did not think so. His main object, however, in rising was to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance similar to that which had been extracted from him on former occasions, that Supply, excluding the Report, should should not be continued after twelve o'clock. What everyone desired was to make it clear that twelve o'clock was the hour when opposed business came to a conclusion in the House. Financial business ought not to be restricted, but at the same time it was not necessary that it should be contracted. Sitting to these late hours was contrary to the principles of conducting business in the House, and the constant suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule was really becoming a crying evil, and one which every Member ought to vote against.
Mr. T. M. HEALYstrongly supported the Amendment. He assumed that the Civil List Committee would be one of the "other Committees authorising the expenditure of public money," and it would be an extraordinary thing if the House was to continue to discuss every matter arising out of that Committee after midnight. The Government ought to give an undertaking that all Civil List matters, which necessarily were of great importance, should not be brought under this rule. One reason which inclined him strongly to support the Amendment was that only three days was allowed for the discussion of Irish Supply, and, owing to the procedure last week, a great many Irish Estimates had not been discussed, and the only opportunity left was upon Report of Supply; but in the last two sessions not an Irish Member was allowed to open his mouth upon the subject. They were not allowed to discuss, for instance, the way in which the Royal Irish Constabulary was conducted. Let the House consider what it would mean if hon. Members were not allowed to discuss the Navy and the Army. Yet the Irish were not allowed to discuss the Royal Irish Constabulary, which was a sign of British rule in Ireland. In former times the Government always put down Report of Supply at a reasonable hour; the present resolution was an attempt on the part of the Government to com-

1205
mence discussion on Report of Supply after twelve o'clock. Members did not realise how many Irish items were undiscussed by this procedure. The result of the system was that owing to the way Irish Supply was put down, the whole twenty-three days was exhausted without any discussion taking place upon it, and the whole of Irish Supply upon Report stage was dealt with after twelve o'clock, which meant that Irish Members had no opportunity of criticising this expenditure. He complained of the way in which their opportunities were curtailed, and thought that if they were to be curtailed in the future as they had been in the past, and were being now, it would be cheaper and easier to exclude the Irish Members altogether. That was a motion he would heartily support, because it was a mockery to bring Members over from Ireland to discuss Irish matters, and give them no opportunity for doing so except at irregular times, in an irregular manner, which must give in the end irregular results. If the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment, they should give some explanation for not doing so. In his opinion they had reached the limit of taxation, and the motion was to stifle discussion. The result was that the House was losing all control over money matters, and had to abide by the decision of Ministers. One occasionally noticed protests against monarchy, but monarchy was tolerable compared with oligarchy, and he did not know whether if there were a British Republic, with Lord Salisbury as its first President, the country would be much better off than under Edward VII.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES, said that the right hon. Gentleman had presented the resolution to the House as a perfectly harmless, innocuous, and, indeed, profitable resolution. So far as the House of Commons was concerned, he had pointed out that there were only twenty-three days for Supply, including the Report stage, and that whatever on the last of those twenty-three days had not been discussed would be guillotined and taken as reported. That might be true, but there were two other matters connected with the resolution which
1206
the right hon. Gentleman had not touched upon. The resolution proposed to give to Parliament hours for discusson which Parliament had excluded as being improper. There was also a Committee authorising the expenditure of public money which had nothing to do with Supply—the Ways and Means Committee. The Civil List Committee was one of those which this session would be included in the term "other Committees authorising the expenditure of public money." Surely that was not a matter that should be treated in this way. He did not anticipate any difficulty in that matter, but, of coursel there were many stages to go through. First of all there was the Select Committee and then there was the Committee of the House. It was a matter of absolutely the first importance, and no opportunity ought to be lightly given away by the House of Commons for its discussion according to the ancient rules of the House. Not only had the Civil List to be fully and adequately discussed in the Committee of the whole House, but the Report should also be taken at an hour which would show proper respect for the Sovereign. The Government had already taken away the immrmorial right of moving Amendments on going into Committee of Ways and Means. Last Monday, when they were entering upon the course of shutting down one after another the safety valves of the House, he warned them that they would have an explosion, and on Tuesday the explosion came. The Government were now proposing to shut another safety valve. The Report of the Committee on Ways and Means would this year have an importance which it had never had before in that House. It was in the Committee of Ways and Means that the Budget would be moved. If ever there was an occasion on which the House ought still to jealously preserve the right of discussing financial questions surely it was this year. He did not know what new taxes—perhaps protective taxes, which were favoured by his right hon. friend the Member for Isle of Thanet—were to be proposed. He really thought the Leader of the House ought not to ask them to give up the opportunity for discussing at proper hours the Report of the Committee on

1207
Ways and Means. As to the Amendment before the House, he did not care twopence about it. It was not a question of applying the motion before or after Easter. He looked at this matter as it affected the facilities afforded to private and unofficial Members to do their duty to their constituents. He deeply deplored the successive shutting down of all these safety valves, and he regretted that the Government had found it necessary to propose this motion.
MR. BLAKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had treated this motion as if it had nothing to do with anything but the Committee of Supply.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the Amendment before the House was limited entirely to the operation of the Twelve o'clock Rule before Easter.
MR. BLAKEsaid he was pursuing the course pursued by the hon. Members for North Louth and King's Lynn.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentleman was now discussing the main question. Of course it would be in order to discuss that afterwards, but he thought they had better dispose of the question before the House first.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 254. (Division List No. 54.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, Patrick (Ki kenny)

Allen, Chas. P.(Glouc., Stroud)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Ambrose, Robert

Hammond, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Dowd, John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Black, Alexander William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Malley, William

Blake, Edward

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

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Holland, William Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jacoby, James Alfred

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Joicey, Sir James

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Perks, Robert William

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Philipps, John Wynford

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pickard, Benjamin

Burke, E. Haviland-

Joyce, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kennedy, Patrick James

Price, Robert John

Caine, William Sproston

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambert, George

Reddy, M.

Carew, James Laurence

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Redmond, William (Clare)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Cogan, Denis J.

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lloyd-George, David

Roche, John

Cremer, William Randal

Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Crombie, John William

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Dalziel, James Henry

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Shipman, Dr John G.

Delany, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Soares, Ernest J.

Dully, William J.

Mather, William

Stevenson, Francis S.

Duncan, James H.

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Strachey, Edward

Dunn, Sir William

Mooney, John J.

Sullivan, Donal

Edwards, Frank

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Tennant, Harold John

Elibank, Master of

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Emmott, Alfred

Moulton, John Fletcher

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstn'e

Murphy, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Farrell, James Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tally, Jasper

Fenwick, Charles

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

Wallace, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Furness, Sir Christopher

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

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Md

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Weir, James Galloway

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wodehouse, Hon. A. (Essex)

Mr. John Ellis and Dr. Farquharson.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Yoxall, James Henry

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfield

Kimber, Henry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

Knowles, Lees

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lee, Capt A H. (Hants. Fareham

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Leighton, Stanley

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Baldwin, Alfred

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch'h)

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

Lowe, Francis William

Banbury, Frederick George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Fisher, William Haves

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmith)

Hartley, George C. T.

Fison, Frederick William

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Elannery, Sir Fortescue

Maconochie, A. W.

Beckett, Ernest William

Fletcher, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Forster, Henry William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Bigwood, James

Garfit, William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Blundell, Col. Henry

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Bond, Edward

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Malcolm, Ian

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert J.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Boulnois, Edmund

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Gordon, Maj. E.-(T'r Hamlets)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir john Eldon

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Graham, Henry Robert

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Bull, William James

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Milward, Colonel Victor

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gretton, John

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Gunter, Colonel

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hain, Edward

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Morrison, James Archibald

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Chapman, Edward

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nderry

Mount, William Arthur

Charrington, Spencer

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Muntz, Philip A.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Coddington, Sir William

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Myers, William Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Nicholson, William Graham

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampsd.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Hogg, Lindsay

Parker, Gilbert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Cranborne, Viscount

Horner, Frederick William

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Penn, John

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hoult, Joseph

Pilkington, Richard

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Howard, J. (Mid., Tottenham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil

Plummer, Walter R.

Cast, Henry John C.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jessel, Cap. Herbert Merton

Pretyman, Ernest George

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

Dewar, T. R. (T'r H'mlets S. Geo.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Purvis, Robert

1210

1211

Pym, C. Guy

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Valentia, Viscount

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Webb, Colonel William George

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

Welby, Lt. -Col. ACE (Taunton

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Round, James

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wills, Sir Frederick

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Russell, T. W.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

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

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Seton-Karr, Henry

Tufnell, Col. Edward

MR. BLAKEsaid the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely inadequate. It had been proved to demonstration that twenty-three days were absolutely inadequate for the orderly discussion of these matters, and as there was not time to discuss them in that period, they were told that they must find hours after midnight to carry on the business. They had to remember that the Votes in Supply this session would probably be of unexampled extent, and in many respects would be special and peculiar. They had to remember that the discussion on the Report was of a very important character. It represented the sober second thought of the House. It was unfortunate in such a session that a motion should be proposed requiring that the discussion should take place at untimely and unseemly hours, for that was practically what it meant. It was a proposal that the discussion should take place at a time when it was practically impossible that it could be effective. The situation of the country with reference to Ways and Means was of the most serious character. They knew the extent of the expenditure, but they did not know in the slightest degree the methods by which it was to be met, and to say beforehand that the discussion on the Report of the Committee on Ways and Means was to be taken at two, three, or four in the morning, was much more serious this session than it would be when ordinary Budgets were presented.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was opposed entirely to the new rule. If it was to be pressed it was desir-
1212
able that it should, to a certain extent be amended. In 1837, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day moved the appointment of a Committee on the Civil List, he stated to the House what the proposals of the Government would be. He contended that the House would not have a full opportunity of discussing the Bill if they were obliged to take it at two or three o'clock in the morning, as business was done in a very perfunctory fashion at that hour. He therefore moved to omit the words "and of other Committees authorising the expenditure of public money."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEin seconding the Amendment considered that in a session which was to be practically a financial session, the opportunities of criticising the expenditure of public money, instead of being limited should be increased. There were to be a war bill of practically £90,000,000, an enormous increase in the normal expenditure upon the Army, a considerable increase of the expenditure upon the Navy, and a Budget Bill almost unparalleled in the financial history of the country. Two things characterised the management of public affairs by the present Government: firstly, the enormous increase in public expenditure; and, secondly, the greatly diminished opportunities for discussing that expenditure. Hardly a session had passed since their accession to office but the First Lord had set up some new precedent for limiting discussion; and no Leader had ever dared so much to crib, cabin, and confine the House of Commons in the exercise of its primary function and duty. It was

1213
absurd to say that matters could be discussed after 12 o'clock. Such discussion was really no discussion at all, as it was absolutely ineffective in calling public attention to the questions considered. The First Lord was nullifying the effect of his favourite weapon, as on the one hand he applied the closure, and on the other he advised the House to discuss questions after 12 o'clock. After midnight the House was not in full command of its temper or faculties, and to press important business after that hour was simply to provoke a repetition of the scenes recently experienced. The First Lord did not gain wisdom from experience, but was insisting on perpetuating that state of things which had been condemned by one of the most disgraceful scenes the House of Commons or any other House had ever witnessed.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to leave out the words 'and other Committees authorising the expenditure of public money.'" (Mr. Labouchere.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has ranged over a great variety of topics, and concluded with some observations with regard to the curtailment of discussion on expenditure. I do not know what discussion of expenditure the hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he used that argument. I have already pointed out to the House that so far as the ordinary opportunities of discussing expenditure are concerned the rule as it stands is in addition to those advantages, and not in limitation of them. The hon. Gentleman's observation therefore seemed to be singularly wide of the mark. Hut all that is apart from the criticism of the hon. Member for South Longford and that of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Those hon. Members were not dealing with criticism of Supply or on Report of Supply. The hon. Member for South Longford was concerned as to the Report stage generally of all Money Bills, and the hon. Member for Northampton was distinctly concerned, as I understood him, about the Civil List. What invasion of the privileges of Members does this rule
1214
carry with it? We are not discussing Committee of Supply; we are taking those Committees in which a Bill is introduced. Take the Civil List. What opportunities will the House have with or without this Amendment of discussing the Civil List? The Bill will have to be introduced in a Money Committee; that Committee will no doubt stand first Order of the Day, and will be open to the full discussion which such a position gives. The Report of that Money Committee may be taken after twelve o'clock, and my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn appeared to think that that was an invasion of the ancient privileges and practice of this House. But under the old conditions everything could be discussed after twelve o'clock, and so far as this motion of mine has any effect at all on the procedure of the House it is reverting to the ancient practice of discussing the Report stage of these Committees after twelve o'clock.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There was no closure then.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What relation has that to my argument? My argument is that this Amendment of mine, instead of diminishing opportunities of discussion, is restoring to the House the old opportunities of which I am accused of robbing them. The Budget has been referred to. The Budget will be introduced in Committee of Ways and Means. It will be discussed in Committee of Ways and Means, then on the Report of that Committee, then on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill, then in Committee, then, if there is any alteration, on Report, and finally on Third Reading. There are thus five stages upon which the Budget can be discussed, and all the present resolution does is to say that one of those stages may be taken after twelve o'clock. This is the invasion of ancient privileges which has provoked the philippics of the hon. Gentleman opposite! It appears to me that the course we are taking is one eminently for the convenience of the House, and I trust it will, without further discussion, be agreed to.
MR. FLYNNbelieved the practical effect of the resolution would

1215
be to repeal the Twelve o'clock Rule. Experience had proved that all work done after midnight was practically useless. The provincial, and especially the Irish press, could have no report of the proceedings, and millions of money might be voted without the public knowledge. If any encouragement were needed to resist the motion it was supplied by the Vote of £17,000,000 which was closured a few nights previously without anything like adequate discussion. In the present session, above all others, opportunities for full discussion were needed, but no Minister had ever done more to limit those opportunities or to curtail the liberties of debate than the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House.
MR. BARTLEYsaid he should always support the rights of private Members, but it was a pity to fight over a matter which was really in no way a deprivation. It was absurd to talk about the loss of ancient privileges. When he first entered the House the discussion on Supply and Report was practically all carried on after twelve o'clock, whereas now there were twenty-three days for Supply, and the Estimates had never been discussed so well as since the introduction of the present system. He thought it was a tactical mistake to closure the Vote on Account on the preceding Tuesday, but the fact remained that if the Government had allowed another night to the discussion it would simply have meant a day less for the remaining Estimates, so that it was really to the advantage, rather than the reverse, of private Members. On occasions there was an advantage in being able to speak on Votes of Supply after twelve o'clock, and without doubt such a power as this did enable the Government to carry on its business in the face of determined opposition which sometimes existed.
MR. DALZIELcould not follow the argument that this resolution would confer extra time for discussing Supply. If the resolution was not passed the Report of Supply would have to be dealt with before twelve o'clock, and consequently in Government time.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be closured.
MR. DALZIELwould much rather have the closure and no discussion than the farce of a discussion after twelve o'clock. It was amazing to hear the First Lord talking as if he would like to go back to the ancient times before the Twelve o'clock Rule was passed. The very worst thing the House could do would be to encourage such a course in any but the most exceptional circumstances. If in such a session as the present this resolution was to be passed, why did not the right hon. Gentleman have the courage of what appeared to be his opinion, and suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule altogether? It was no good the House deluding itself with the idea that it was sitting under the Twelve o'clock Rule if day after day it had to look at its Order Paper to see whether there was any Report of Supply to be taken which might occupy several hours after midnight. Seeing that only one item of the Vote on Account closured a few nights before had been discussed, it was almost certain there would be a very late, if not an all-night, sitting on the Report stage of that Vote. The right hon. Gentleman was really working the House a little too far. A most important discussion with regard to the Civil List might take place after midnight. There would be a Select Committee; the Select Committee would make a Report; in order to carry out that Report a Bill would be required; that Bill could only be brought before the House on a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means; and the Report on that would come after twelve o'clock. In view of the character of the business before the House this session, and the enormous demands already made, he considered a case had not been made out for the resolution.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORrather envied the light heart with which the Leader of the House calmly proposed that they should go back to the struggles and hours which obtained in the sessions between 1880 and 1887, but if those conditions were to be renewed he believed that many Members would before long find the

1217
preservation of their health to be inconsistent with their remaining Members of the House. If this rule was passed, Members would begin seriously to discuss between midnight and two or three o'clock in the morning questions they had been unable to debate at other periods of the session, with the result that Ministers and officials of the House, and perhaps, under existing circumstances, the police also, would be compelled once more to return to the bad habits which he thought the House had given up for ever. It was impossible that complicated diplomacy and intricate negotiation could be satisfactorily carried on by Ministers who came to their offices jaded and weary after a late sitting in the House. The right hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter of the principles of the Monarchy, but could anything be more calculated to prejudice the repute of the Monarchy in this country than that a proposal with regard to the revenues of the Crown should be brought forward in the small hours of the morning, when there was no reasonable opportunity for discussing
the question, or of having the debates reported in the press? The hon. Member strongly protested against the resolution, and warned the House that, if carried, it would mean a return to the bad old time when Members considered themselves very lucky if they were able to get to bed between four and five o'clock in the morning.
MR. JORDANsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury stated that his motion would give them additional time, but it would be illegitimate time, when their minds and bodies were jaded. He protested against being compelled to sit in the House up to such untimely hours of the morning. The ancient usage to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was repealed on account of its oppressiveness, and now the First Lord of the Treasury wished to retain not only this ancient usage but the closure as well.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 253; Noes. 161. (Division List No. 55.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dinning Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chapman, Edward

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Charrington, Spencer

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

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bain, Col. James Robert

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fisher, William Hayes

Baird, John George Alexander

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Fison, Frederick William

Balcarres, Lord

Coghill, Douglas Harry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Baldwin, Alfred

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

F'lannery, Sir Fortescue

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christchch

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Forster, Henry William

Banbury, Frederick George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Garfit, William

Bartley, George C. T.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

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

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Gordon, Maj. E.-(T'r Hamlets)

Beckett, Ernest William

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bigwood, James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Blundell, Col. Henry

Cust, Henry John C.

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Bond, Edward

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Gretton, John

Boulnois, Edmund

Dewar, T. R (T'r H'mlets, S Geo.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Bowles, Capt H. F. (Middlesex)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gunter, Colonel

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

Hain, Edward

Bull, William James

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hall, Edward Marshall

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred. D.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

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

Dorington, Sir John I'd ward

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfr'd

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

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Round, James

Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Russell, T. W.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Milton, Viscount

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotte

Milward, Colonel Victor

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Higginbottom, S. W.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Hogg, Lindsay

Moore, William (Antrim. N.)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hoult, Joseph

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Morrison, James Archibald

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Win. Lawies

Mount, William Arthur

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Muntz, Philip A.

Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stroyan, John

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Myers, William Henry

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Thorburn, Sir Walter

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Thornton, Percy M.

Knowles, Lees

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

Parker, Gilbert

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Valentia, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lee, Capt. A H (Hants, Fareham

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Penn, John

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pilkington, Richard

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Plummer, Walter R.

Webb, Colonel William George

Long, Rt Hon Walter (Bristol, S)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Welby, Lt. Col. A C E (Taunton

Lowe, Francis William

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. Edw.

Whiteley, H (Asht'n und. Lyne

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Purvis, Robert

Wills, Sir F'rederick

Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

Pym, C. Guy

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

Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Macdona, John dimming

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Maconochie, A. W.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Majendie, James A. H.

Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridge

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Malcolm, Ian

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Sir William Walrond and

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Caine, William Sproston

Emmott, Alfred

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Caldwell, James

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Ambrose, Robert

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Farrell, James Patrick

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Carew, James Laurence

Fenwick, Charles

Atherley-Jones, L.

Causton, Richard Knight

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Barlow, John Emmott

Cogan, Denis J.

Ffrench, Peter

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Flynn, James Christopher

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cremer, William Randal

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Bell, Richard

Crombie, John William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Black, Alexander William

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Blake, Edward

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Boland, John

Delany, William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dewar John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Grant, Corrie

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Dilke, lit. Hon. Sir Charles

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Broadhnrst, Henry

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hammond, John

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Duffy, William J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Duncan, James H.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dunn, Sir William

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Burke, E. Haviland-

Edwards, Frank

Hayden, John Patrick

Burns, John

Elibank, Master of

Healy, Timothy Michael

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Ellis, John Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

1220

1221

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

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

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

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Holland, William Henry

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norman, Henry

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Joicey, Sir James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Soares, Ernest J.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northn'ts.

Joyce, Michael

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

Stevenson, Francis S.

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Strachey, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Sullivan, Donal

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

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

Tennant, Harold John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Dowd, John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Leng, Sir John

O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Levy, Maurice

O'Malley, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Mara, James

Tully, Jasper

Lloyd-George, David

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wallace, Robert

Lough, Thomas

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent)

Perks, Robert William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Philipps, John Wynford

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Pickford, Benjamin

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Weir, James Galloway

M'Dermott, Patrick

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Price, Robert John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Reckitt, Harold James

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Mather, William

Reddy, M.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Mellor, Kt. Hon. John Wm.

Redmond, John E (Waterford)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Mooney, John J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Yoxall, James Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfr.

Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Moulton, John Fletcher

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Dalziel.

Murphy, J.

Roche, John

MR. TULLY MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.) moved an Amendment to leave out the Report of Supply of 5th March from the operation of the motion before the House. He believed he was correct in stating that there was no precedent for the moving of the closure upon a Vote amounting to £17,000,000 after one night's debate.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss at this point the application of the closure.
MR. TULLYsaid lie was striving to give his reasons, and one was that this Vote of £17,000,000—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that question.
MR. TULLYsaid they wished to discuss the Report of Supply of the 5th of March at a reasonable hour, so that they could have a full and frank discussion upon all the different items. He thought that under the circumstances the First Lord of the Treasury might agree to exempt this particular Vote. He thought it was entirely unprecedented
1222
to closure a Vote on Account of £17,000,000—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not enter upon that subject.
MR. T. M. HEALY: We cannot hear your words, Mr. Speaker, owing to the disorder on the other side.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to insert, after the word 'Money,' the words 'excepting the Report of Supply of 5th March.'"(Mr. Tully.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have generally voted with the Government on this rule in reference to Report of Supply and Report of Ways and Means. I voted against them on the last motion. That was a separate matter, and it was only used in the year 1896. I thought there was a great deal of force in the objection taken to the Civil List. I think what the hon. Member has just asked for might reasonably be granted. I think

1223
that one night's discussion on such a large matter, involving so much money and so many subjects as that Vote of Account, is not sufficient. It is not a question of an ordinary Vote in Supply, and it is rather misleading to call it a Vote in Supply. The right hon. Gentleman has said that, after all, if there is to be another day granted to this Vote it must come out of the private Members' time. That is quite true, but I think it is a very reasonable solution, and it is not asking the Government to sacrifice any Government time, to grant what the hon. Member has asked for. It would come out of the time allotted to Supply, and I think it would be a good way of dealing with this question.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I fear there is still a certain amount of misconception in the House in regard to this matter. I have already endeavoured to remove it, but once again I will try to explain. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said he did so on the ground that two millions of the amount of the Vote on Account was for Irish purposes in which Irish Members were interested, which he thought should be discussed, and he thought the proper place to discuss it was on the Vote on Account. But the right hon. Gentleman, on general grounds, expressed an opinion that more time should be given to the Vote on Account. So far as the Government are concerned, it matters not a farthing whether the whole of the twenty-three days are devoted to discussion of Estimates in the form of Votes on Account or in the specific form of separate Votes. It is a more convenient proceeding to discuss Votes by arrangement when you know what the Votes are, than in the loose and uncertain fashion which is inevitable if they are discussed on the Vote on Account. I quite grant that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a natural and legitimate desire to discuss both the Irish Local Government Board and the Irish Constabulary Votes, but the only question is whether it would not be more convenient to discuss them on the Irish Estimates on a day fixed beforehand when these Votes would be put down first. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his legitimate desire to discuss these Votes might not be fulfilled
1224
if I followed the course he suggests; for, suppose the Report of the Vote on Account were put down as the first Order next Friday, those Votes might never be reached. It is in the power of the Government to print the Votes in what order they like—following a practice which, I admit, is unusual, but which is I think, convenient, and which was adopted to facilitate discussion—and therefore I made an appeal, through the proper channel, to the Leader of the Opposition to know what Votes he desired to come on first.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Did the right hon. Gentleman make any communication to the Irish party in settling the order of the Votes?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I did not.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has boasted over and over again, if I may use the expression, that in settling the order of Votes he has taken care to consult the convenience of Members in all quarters of the House; and it has been the practice to consult the representatives of the Irish party. But on this occasion he neglected to do so.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In deciding in what order the Votes on the Irish Estimates should come up on the day fixed for these Estimates, the wishes of the Irish Members are supreme. I have always admitted that; but in regard to the Vote on Account, the Government have to consider the wishes of the Opposition as a whole, and not a particular section of it. Now, what I come to is this: having, to the best of my ability, put down the Votes in the order which I thought was most convenient, it is impossible that that order can be altered on the Report stage. If the Vote on Account was put down first on Friday night, it would not prevent any Member of the House from raising points on an earlier Vote than those in which the hon. Gentleman is interested; and we should be as far off from the Votes for the Irish Local Government Board and the Irish Constabulary as on Tuesday last. Therefore, if it were the view of the Opposition that more time should

1225
be given to the Irish Local Government Board Vote at the expense of other Votes, the Government are quite ready to accede to that wish. We have no desire to burke discussion on that Vote or any other Vote; but the convenient method for arriving at it, is not to put down the Vote on Account, but to fix a day convenient to the Irish Members for the discussion of the Irish Estimates. I regard it as almost an essential part of the new Supply rule that the greater part of the time should be devoted to specific Votes and the smallest portion of time to vague discussions of Votes on Account. If the Opposition prefer a broad, loose, and mixed discussion to precise, specific, and fixed discussion, I think they are wrong; but it is not for the Government to complain, as the total amount of time taken from the Government resources is not increased. But I do beg hon. Gentlemen to understand, if they want the Estimates to be properly discussed, that the proper way to arrive at it is not by promiscuous debate on Votes on Account, but by insisting on specific Votes being brought forward on Fridays. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they are going to press mo to give another of the twenty-three days for Supply to the Vote on Account, I shall accede to the request, but I would rather that they would allow us, as soon as possible, to go into the orderly, businesslike, and pre-arranged debates which are only possible when we take the Votes in their order.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Opposition, but he seemed to have forgotten that there was only one Opposition now—the Irish Opposition; at least, since the Liberal party had chosen to tread "the Primrose path of dalliance" marked out for it by Lord Rosebery. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had now successfully demonstrated that there should be no discussion on the Vote on Account. His argument had gone the full length. He had proved satisfactorily to Irish Members that they should never open their mouths on Votes on Account. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, now suggested topics for debate interesting to the party of Lord Rosebery; and therefore it was inevitable that no Irish question could
1226
ever be considered on Votes on Account. It was due to his colleagues for him to say that their demand for discussion was reasonable in view of the decision recently given by the Irish Court of Appeal in regard to the action of the Local Government Board—a decision which affected not merely their Imperial relations with Ireland as taxpayers, but the local relations as ratepayers. That decision involved tens of thousands of pounds to the county councils and local bodies, and the Irish Members had been expecting some discussion upon it, though evidently that was not to be allowed. Why, therefore, were the Irish Members brought here at all, if they were never to be allowed to say a word on the expenditure of seventeen millions of money? He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman took so much interest in Irish subjects as he did when he occupied an Irish office, but he was sure if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the intense interest which centred round the dispute between the Local Government Board and the county and district councils, some evening would be given to the discussion of it. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that new orders of the Local Government Board were being moulded at this moment. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman as an escape out of the difficulty that there should be some under standing in the House that he should put down Report of Supply some evening with a view to this Irish subject being thoroughly threshed out. The matter could be easily arranged by Mr. Speaker calling first on some Irish Member.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would he really practicable to give another night to the Vote on Account, unless there was some general arrangement as to the Supplementary Votes to be taken before Easter. As it is, I am afraid that, in order to comply with the law, late nights and Saturday sittings will be necessary up to 31st March. I do not see how the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite can be met unless all other Members waive all questions that arise on the Vote on Account before the Irish Votes; in the second place, unless they give the Government the remaining Supplementary Estimates, so

1227
that we may meet the law; and in the third place, unless they submit to one of the twenty-two remaining days being taken away in order to have the desired discussion on the Vote on Account. If, on the contrary, they are not prepared to give all these three things, I venture to suggest that, if this be a question of such immediate pressure, the best plan would be to ask me to give them the first free Friday after we have complied with the law. I want to give them every facility they can legitimately claim.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was constantly saying he would oblige those on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not do justice to their feelings. They wanted something more than time; they wanted satisfaction. He wanted to support the Amendment in order to get further consideration for the Report of Supply of March 5th. They were dealing on Tuesday last with a concrete subject full of details, which was very pressing, especially in London; but the House of Commons had no attention whatever paid to it from, and certainly no satisfactory answer given by, the Government in regard to that subject. If the right hon. Gentleman conceded a short time to the House of Commons, it might possibly do; but if he would listen to nothing, the discussion would not be of a very productive character. He saw the Vice-President present. That right hon. Gentleman told them the other night, and he had repeated it since, that he could do nothing on this educational matter. What they wanted was that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who could do something, should come there; and then the matter could be disposed of very quickly. If they were met in a spirit of consideration or compromise in regard to some administrative details which they thought very pressing, then the business of the House; could go on.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the claim his friends had made was reasonable, and the right hon. Gentleman should find a way out of the difficulty. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was under a, misapprehension as to what was, really
1228
wanted. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman not that one of the allotted Irish days should be devoted to discussing Report of Supply, but that on some day in the near future two or three hours before midnight should be devoted to it. In that way the right hon. Gentleman would be making what was after all a very small concession, but one which would go a considerable way to meet the difficulty in which they were placed. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to concede this reasonable claim, and rob them, if he might put it in that way, to some extent of a grievance.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My objection to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is that it is quite impossible for me to bind the House, nor do I see how it is possible to make a time arrangement unless there is a consensus of opinion that the matter to be discussed is one which the House desires to hear. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT was understood to dissent.] Of course my hon. friend the Member for Ecclesall would have something to say on foreign affairs! If I were to make some concession to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, he might make some concession to me in regard to time.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he had no power to give any such undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a mutual compromise. He was to give the Irish Members two hours, and they were to give him all the time necessary to get him out of the difficulty caused by his calling Parliament too late.
MR. ASQUITHobserved that the main difficulty in carrying out the very reasonable suggestion of the hon. Member for Waterford was that no security had been devised, either by arrangement or otherwise, that the Irish Votes would be taken first.
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he desired to support the Amendment because in his opinion it was undoubtedly the fault of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the House found itself in its present position. If the right hon. Gentleman was so desirous of concluding the financial business in the legal time.

1229
he should have called Parliament together a month earlier than he did. That the Government found itself in a difficulty was due entirely to the action of the right hon. Gentleman, not only for not calling Parliament together earlier, but also through closuring the debate in the previous week, by which means many matters were entirely cut out from discussion. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman simply amounted to this, that if the Irish Members desired to discuss Votes on Account, they would have to discuss them during an all-night sitting, merely because the Government had not taken proper precautions to ensure facilities being given to Parliament to discuss the Votes. Such a state of things, if carried to its logical conclusion, was bound to affect the health of Members and render them physically unable to carry on the work of the House. It was a, physical impossibility to continue to sit night after night without the health of Members being affected. It appeared to him that the House sat, not for the accommodation of humble private Members, but for the wealthy classes—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling into matters unconnected with the question. The question is whether the words "except Report of Supply of 5th March" shall be added.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have exhausted my ingenuity in finding methods by which we can both keep the law and meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I now make this suggestion that after this rule has been passed I shall not put down the Vote on Account after twelve o'clock until I am absolutely driven to it by the arrival of the 25th March. I will put it off and take the Report of Supply after twelve o'clock, and then I will put it down, if I can, at a convenient hour.
MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that, in the absence of the Leader of the Irish party, he could not reply to the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought every facility should be given for the discussion of the Votes affecting Ireland, which were of the greatest importance
1230
to the country, affecting as they did over a million of money. The right hon. Gentleman had already encroached far too much on the time that used to be given to Irish Supply, and although the Irish Members were only a small minority in the House, they had exercised fully and fairly the duties of opposition, they had taken every opportunity of pressing upon the Government important reforms, and they ought to have a fair opportunity of ventilating the grievances under which their country suffered. If such opportunity were given to them he had no doubt whatever they would be able to bring home to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for important reforms in the administration of the country from which they came. Upon the Vote for the Local Government Board, for instance, they would be able to bring home the absolute despotism with which that bureaucratic body governed Ireland; the Public Works Office would give an opportunity to discuss another office of the same kind, and there were many other important matters. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept in its entirety the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Leitrim. It was not a great concession to make, seeing that there were still Parliamentary days to discuss Supply, that there was no great legislative proposal before the House, and no very important matter to be discussed. He could not understand under the circumstances why the right hon. Gentleman had curtailed the time of the House, nor could he see any reason why he should not accept the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
A VOICE FROM THE IRISH BENCHES: Oh, oh—gag at once.
*Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! If I knew who the hon. Member was who called out "gag" I should certainly take notice of his conduct.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD BARTLETTsaid he desired to call the attention of the House for

1231
one moment to the very great danger of its forgetting what Votes on Account really were. They embraced all the subjects in the Estimates for the whole session—every subject, English, Irish, Scotch, home, foreign, and colonial. It had been the practice to have what the First Lord of the Treasury had, in his opinion, unfortunately called promiscuous discussions. The discussion was varied, necessarily, because the subjects were varied and promiscuous. He was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman decline to be a party to binding the House to an isolated discussion upon one subject, upon a Vote on Account. With all due respect to hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland, and who no doubt desired earnestly to discuss Irish subjects, there wore other subjects which ought to be discussed. There were many Members in the House who felt that discussion was more necessary on foreign affairs—on Chinese affairs—than upon Irish affairs. He also desired to call attention to the unfortunate result of what happened the other night when one Vote only was put down and the discussion of it arranged for the whole evening.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Nobody arranged that. What I did arrange was what Vote should be taken first.
*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid when the Educational Vote was put down first, and a reduction moved, it was the general scheme that it should be dis-
cussed all the evening. That proceeding resulted in the absolute curtailment of discussion on any other business whatever. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of doing this deliberately, but he asked him to consider how easy it would be for a Government, when they found a subject which they, in their judgment, considered a dangerous subject for discussion, to arrange with the Opposition to put down a Vote for discussion upon some other subject in which great interest was taken by the House, and, by encouraging that discussion to continue, shut out entirely the subject which they wished to avoid. He protested against that sort of procedure, and he hoped that the Irish Members would not allow the Irish Estimates to be made a means of preventing discussion upon all other subjects. He should certainly vote for the Amendment.
MR. POWERsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury had spoken of the necessity for economising the time of the House. In his view the management of affairs by the right hon. Gentleman had consumed more time than anything else. The very motion the right hon. Gentleman now made was a condemnation of these big Supplementary Votes.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 56.)

AYES.

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Ambrose, Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Holland, William Henry

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Delany, William

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jordan, Jeremiah

Barlow, John Emmott

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Joyce, Michael

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Duffy, William J.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dunn, Sir William

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Bell, Richard

Ellis, John Edward

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Black, Alexander William

Emmott, Alfred

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Blake, Edward

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leng, Sir John

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Levy, Maurice

Brigg, John

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Broadhurst, Henry

Ffrench, Peter

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Dermott, Patrick

Burns, John

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mather, William

Caine, William Sproston

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mooney, John J.

Caldwell, James

Grant, Corrie

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hammond, John

Murphy, J.

Cogan, Denis J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

Cremer, William Randal

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Crombie, John William

Helme, Norval Watson

Norman, Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Pickard, Benjamin

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Tully, Jasper

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Reddy, M.

Weir, James Galloway

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

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

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Dowd, John

Roche, John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Russell, T. W.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Yoxall, James Henry

O Malley, William

Soares, Ernest J.

O'Mara, James

Stevenson, Francis S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sullivan, Donal

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.

Philipps, John Wynford

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lowe, Francis William

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Maconochie, A. W.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fisher, William Hayes

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Baird, John George Alexander

Fison, Frederick William

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Balcarres, Lord

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Milton, Viscount

Baldwin, Alfred

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger. W. (Leeds)

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch'ch

Garfit, William

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bartley, George C. T.

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

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

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Beckett, Ernest William

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

Mount, William Arthur

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Muntz, Philip A.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Bigwood, James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

Myers, William Henry

Bond, Edward

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Nicholson, William Graham

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gretton, John

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Parker, Gilbert

Hull, William James

Hain, Edward

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midl'x

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pilkington, Richard

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harris, FLeverton (Tynemouth

Plummer, Walter R.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Chapman, Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Purvis, Robert

Charrington, Spencer

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Pym, C. Guy

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Higginbottom, S. W.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hogg, Lindsay

Rentoul, James Alexander

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hoult, Joseph

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Round, James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Knowles, Lees

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Law, Andrew Bonar

Smith, H. C (Northmb, Tyneside

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lawson, John Grant

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Lee, Capt. A H (Hants, Fareham

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Stroyan, John

1234

1235

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thornton, Percy M.

Webb, Col. William George

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Valentia, Viscount

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

Young, Commander (Berks., E.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Wills, Sir Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wilson, Fred. W Norfolk, Mid.

Sir William Walrond and

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Mr. Anstruther.

Main Question again proposed.
MR. O'MARArose to continue the discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place
and claimed to move, "That the Main Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Main Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 57.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

Knowles, Lees

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Law, Andrew Bonar

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doxford, Sir William T.

Lawson, John Grant

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee, Capt. A H (Hants, Fareham

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Lowe, Francis William

Baird, John George Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Balcarres, Lord

Fisher, William Hayes

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

Baldwin, Alfred

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Manners, Lord Cecil

Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

Forster, Henry William

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

Bartley, George C. T.

Foster, Sir Michael (Lond, Uni.)

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Garfit, William

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

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

Milton, Viscount

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bigwood, James

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

Moore, William (Antrim, N.

Blnndell, Colonel Harry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Bond, Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrell, George Herbert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'y St Edm'ds

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Mount, William Arthur

Bull, William James

Gretton, John

Muntz, Philip A.

Bullard, Sir Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

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

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Myers, William Henry

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hain, Edward

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Chapman, Edward

Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

Parker, Gilbert

Charrington, Spencer

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

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

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Heaton, John Henniker

Plummer, Walter R.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Helme, Norval Watson

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Higginbottom, S. W.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Purvis, Robert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hogg, Lindsay

Pym, C. Guy

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hoult, Joseph

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Rilley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Cranborne, Viscount

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Round, James

Dickson Poynder, Sir John P.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Ivenvon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Russell, T. W.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wills, Sir Frederick

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Stroyan, John

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Valentia, Viscount

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Smith, H. C (Nrth'mb. Tyneside

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Warde, Lieut. Col. C. E.

Spear, John Ward

Warr, Augustus Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wason, John Catheart (Orkney

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Webb, Colonel William George

Stock, James Henry

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

NOES.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Dowd, John

Ambrose, Robert

Grant, Corrie

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Harlow, John Emmott

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Malley, William

Harry, E. (Cork, S.)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Mara, James

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bell, Richard

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Philipps, John Wynford

Black, Alexander William

Holland, William Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

Blake, Edward

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

Pirie, Duncan V.

Boland, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brigg, John

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, M.

Broadhurst, Henry

Kennedy, Patrick James

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burns, John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Caine, William Sproston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Roche, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Levy, Maurice

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cawley, Frederick

Lloyd-George, David

Soares, Ernest J.

Clancy, John Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sullivan, Donal

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Mather, William

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

Cremer, William Randal

Mooney, John J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crombie, John William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Tully, Jasper

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Murphy, J.

Weir, James Galloway

Delany, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Imke (York, E. R.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

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

Duffy, William J.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dunn, Sir William

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Fenwick, Charles

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

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

Main Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 58.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Beckett, Ernest William

Chapman, Edward

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Charrington, Spencer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Bigwood, James

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bond, Edward

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Bain, Col. James Robert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Baird, John George Alexander

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Balcarres, Lord

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Baldwin, Ahred

Bull, William James

Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Balfour, Maj K. R (Christchurch

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Bartley, George C. T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Purvis, Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Pym, C. Guy

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Dickson, Charles Scott

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Kenyon, Tames (Lancs., Bury)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Knowles, Lees

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Duke, Henry Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar

Round, James

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lawson, John Grant

Royds-, Clement Molyneux

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

Russell, T. W.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, K.)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

Smith, H C (Northmb. Tyneside

Forster, Henry William

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Foster, Sir M. (London Univ.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Spear, John Ward

Garfit, William

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

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gordon, Hn. J E.(Elgin & Nairn

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Stock, James Henry

Gordon, Maj E.-(T'r Hamlets)

Milton, Viscount

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stroyan, John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Strutt, Hon. Chas. Medley

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edw'nds

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Thornton, Percy M.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

Gretton, John

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Valentia, Viscount

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Mount, William Arthur

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Hain, Edward

Muntz, Philip A.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Webb, Col. William George

Harris, FLeverton (Tynemouth

Myers, William Henry

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Nicholson, William Graham

Wills, Sir Frederick

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

Norman, Henry

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darling'n

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Higginbottom, S. W.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Hogg, Lindsay

Plummer, Walter R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Hoult, Joseph

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

NOES.

Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Crombie, John William

Helme, Norval Watson

Ambrose, Robert

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Holland, William Henry

Barlow, John Emmott

Delany, William

Jones, David Brynmor (Swanse

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jordan, Jeremiah

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Bell, Richard

Dunn, Sir William

Kennedy, Patrick James

Black, Alexander Willian

Emmott, Alfred

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Blake, Edward

Farquharaon, Dr. Robert

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Boland, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Brigg, John

Fenwick, Charles

Leng, Sir John

Broadhurst, Henry

Ffreneh, Peter

Levy, Maurice

Brown, George M (Edinburgh)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lloyd-George, David

Burns, John

Furness, Sir Christopher

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Caine, William Sproston

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Dermott, Patrick

Caldwell, James

Grant, Corrie

Mather, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mooney, John J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Hammond, John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Cogan, Denis J.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Murphy, J.

Cremer, William Randal

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

1240

1241

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N

Philipps, John Wynford

Tully, Jasper

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Pickard, Benjamin

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Weir, James Calloway

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, Luke (York, E. R.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tiperary Mid

Reddy, M.

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

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmar

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.

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

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

O'Dowd, John

Roche, John

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Soares, Ernest J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

O'Malley, William

Stevenson, Francis S.

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

O'Mara, James

Sullivan, Donal

Mr. Haviland-Burke.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, J A(Glamorgan Gower

Resolutions agreed to.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means and other Committees authorising the expenditure of Public Money may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provision of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
MAJOR RASCHsaid that before dealing with the subject of this motion he wished to say a few words with reference to the extremely elaborate speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. That speech was a very clever one, but he could not help thinking that they had heard something like it before. He could endorse every word the right hon. Gentleman had said about Mr. Cardwell, whose reforms had cost the country not a single penny, and that was a good deal to be able to say. He remembered a speech by Mr. Gathorne-Hardy in which he stated that there were to be eight army corps, but his promise proved to be absolutely futile and utterly worthless. Then they had the speech of Mr. Stanhope in 1892, which was very much of the same character. The Secretary of State for War had made a clever, lawyer-like and ex parte statement, but it reminded him of a magnificent superstructure without any foundation at all, because the raison
1242
d'être of the whole speech was the men, and if they could not get the men, the bottom fell out of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman never told the House how he was going to get the men to enlist, except in reference to the Militia, who were going to have an extra bounty of 2d. per day. The number of men required this year did not bear any proportion to what were required in former years. There was sure to be a slump in recruiting next year, and the getting of the men would form a very considerable difficulty. There were at present in South Africa thousands of time-expired men, and they would go. The Reserve would be depleted, and although the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of Militiamen and Volunteers, he did not make the slightest provision for getting them. He noticed that the Royal Reserve battalions were to be formed into Regular battalions to take the place of those troops now serving in the Mediterranean fortresses, but was the Secretary of State for War sure of getting those Reserve battalions?
THE SECRETARY Of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The hon. and gallant Member is in error. I am not in the least depending upon the Reserve battalions.
MAJOR RASCHsaid he understood the Reserves were to be asked to volunteer, so as to relieve those battalions now serving in the Mediterranean fortresses. It was all very well to assume that you were going to get so many Militiamen and a certain number of Yeomanry and Volunteers, but how were they going to be got? As was pointed out in a very sensible article in The Times, this system was not suited to the con-

1243
dition of things existing in this country. There were some good points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which they all appreciated, and which hon. Members had urged on the War Office for years, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself always opposed whenever he had the chance. One of them was decentralisation, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon having grasped that fact. Then there was the important question of reducing officers' expenses in the cavalry. There was no reason why a young fellow should have to pay £22 for a busby. If hon. Members desired to know how matters stood, they could not do bettor than look up in Thackeray's "Snob Papers" the passages relating to Major Ponto. Unless the right hon. Gentleman carried out drastic changes with reference to kit and uniform, the state of things there described would be likely to continue. There was no reason why this should be so expensive, and even Lord Wolseley had said that a British officer in uniform was like a monkey on an organ. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to try to get rid of some of the absurdities of dress, and he had made a very good suggestion that officers should be allowed to get their kit from a Government depôt.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in getting rid of that obsolete force the Militia Reserve. As for the Yeomanry, he had never been a great admirer of the force; still, after the experience in South Africa, he should never vote against the Yeomanry again, and he was delighted to find that they were to be put in khaki; that would make the force less expensive and more popular. Then the Secretary for War stated that he was going to get rid of the inefficient officers. But why had he not thought of doing that before? His hon. friend the Member for Tunbridge had stated that the only way to obtain the men was by a Militia ballot, but there were great difficulties in the way of such a measure. The Secretary for War had been ten years at the War Office, but it was hardly fair to press him when he had so much heavy work on hand, and he did not propose to move his Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman prophesied some months ago, the war was being prolonged. He feared
1244
that that was owing to a repetition of of mistakes made by the right hon. Gentleman's own Office in Pall Mall. There had recently been what the French would call an extraordinary éclaircisse ment, and the ex-Secretary for War had been severely criticising the late Commander-in-Chief. The Prime Minister had also told them that at the War Office everything had happened for the best; if there was any fault it lay with the British Constitution. He was not sure that the attack upon Lord Wolseley was not a sort of red herring drawn across the scent, and he should like to hear whether Lord Roberts had accepted office under those conditions which Lord Wolseley had found to be absolutely intolerable.
He wished to say a few words about the reinforcements which should have been sent out to South Africa. There was the greatest danger in the continuance of the war, because the longer our troops continued unsuccessful and the longer the end of the war was delayed the nearer came the possibility of foreign intervention. He was anxious to know why reinforcements were not sent out as they should have been during the past six months. Reinforcements were called for by Lord Kitchener, but until the last three months the Government sent hardly any forces. The Member for the Forest of Dean alluded to a statement made by General Mackinnon, in which he condemned the hasty and haphazard way in which recruits were sent to the front. He himself had seen some of the South African Constabulary embarking, and they were all without arms and accoutrements. Those were the men whom the War Office sent out as mounted men. With regard to the Yeomanry, he did not know why the right hon. Gentleman called them yeomen; at any rate they were nothing like the yeomen who used to exist in the county of Essex, who had been extinguished by foreign competition. The right hon. Gentleman had appointed two War Office Departmental Committees, but surely he must be aware that there had been something like forty such Committees appointed since 1815, and the concentrated result of their wisdom had been the recent disasters in South Africa. They knew that the Prime

1245
Minister had suggested the formation of rifle clubs under the auspices of the Primrose League. Nothing could have shown the blissful ignorance of the Premier more than that statement. The Prime Minister had stated practically that the defence of the country was not the business of the Government, and under those circumstances they need not expect very much reform at the War Office from him. With regard to the Reserve battalions, they were very fine regiments, although the men measured rather more round the waist than they did round the chest. The unfortunate part of the matter was that the battalions cost £3,000,000, and in two or three weeks time they would disappear, and there would be nothing to show for the expenditure. If the, War Office had put the money into the Militia there would have been something to show for it, and it would have put some backbone into the force, which it had not had for years. The Royal Reserve regiments contained some of the finest men he ever saw, and it was not proposed to ask them to serve in the Mediterranean garrisons. He ventured to say that that was a great waste. Some years ago, when it was proposed to send the Foot Guards to Gibraltar, he ventured to say that it was very foolish, because there was not room for them to drill, and now they were bringing the Guards back again.
The other evening the Secretary for War stated that the Government were going to allow £5 per annum to the soldier who provided his own horse. Those hon. Members who were generally called the "Colonels" in the House did not receive very much attention; but he thought that the hon. Member for Oldham, with all the experience of the South African War behind him, and all that he had said with reference to guns and horses, should hardly have made the remark that he did. Of course some gentlemen were of the Service Members, but not with them. The remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean were always received, as they should be, with great attention, as those of the greatest military expert in the country, but the remarks of the Service Members were not. However, they did their duty to the best of their power in laying their views before the House. He would respectfully remind the right
1246
hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench of an incident that occurred a hundred years ago across the Channel. The Ministers of Louis XVI. were confronted by a reformer. He did not know whether Jean Jacques Rousseau was a military reformer or not, but they had it on the authority of Carlyle that though the Ministers of Louis XVI. laughed to scorn the first edition of his book, their skins went to form the binding of the second. However, he did not anticipate any such calamity happening here, and he should be the first to deprecate such a proceeding as applied even to the Secretary for War. After all, the man in the street considered that War Office reform was a matter of business, and should be carried through as such, and surely the Government, with the assistance of the Secretary for War, whose eloquent speech they had all admired, should be able to add up the cost of putting the defences of the country on a proper footing and be prepared for anything that might happen. The doggerel of the American poet might be appropriately quoted:—
"Thrice armed is he who has his quarrel just, But four times he who has his fist in fust."
*MR. TREVELYANsaid he had put down a motion on the Paper to call attention to the fact that the Army was not a profession in which the officers could support themselves on their present pay; that the unprofessionalism in the Army, about which the Secretary for War had complained the other night, was chiefly due to the present expensive standards of living amongst many officers in many regiments; and that unprofessionalism would not be remedied until the pay was raised so as to attract quite a new class of officers into the Army. His feelings in introducing this subject were different from what they would have been two or three days ago, before the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Hon. Members in all parts of the House had received that speech with great approbation; they were delighted at its businesslike tone, and its spirit of true and energetic reform. No part of the speech, however, bore the ring of determined conviction more than that in which he spoke of the necessity for insisting upon a professional spirit on the part of the

1247
officers, on the necessity of promotion by merit, and on the necessity of cheaper living. That was a clearer statement of what Army reformers wanted than anything that had come from the War Office since the abolition of purchase; and, personally, so far as the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's fiction was concerned, he intended to support him with all his vigour. He did not particularly believe in civilian criticism on the details of Army matters, such as the best kind of artillery and the best sort of rifles. But such criticism might usefully be directed to huge questions of principle.
The fact was the door of the Army was closed at the present moment to any man who had not got an independent income. It was admitted on all hands that in order for a man to be an officer in a cavalry regiment he must have, at least, £500 for his outfit, and at least £500 a year in addition to his pay. He was talking during last summer to a colonel who had just retired from a cavalry regiment, and he asked him how much it was necessary for an officer in that regiment to have. The colonel replied, "From the first moment he comes into the regiment, something between £1,000 and £1,500." The situation was, that a subaltern of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age must, forsooth, have as much money to horses free and spend as any hon. Gentleman who was sitting in that House for a county constituency. [An Hon. Member: Exaggeration.] An hon. Gentleman said that that was an exaggeration; but in regard to his general statement that an officer of a cavalry regiment required to have an income of £500 over and above his pay, and an officer in an infantry regiment £150, he quoted a higher authority than himself—namely, the late Under Secretary for War and the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. When the war was at its height, and there was great need of officers, the Government went to the universities and asked them to give so many men from each university to become officers, and they put it in the hands of the Vice-Chancellors to make this selection. The Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University issued a memorandum inviting candidates, and one sentence in that memorandum was to the
1248
effect that he could not recommend any candidate to the War Office unless he could find an income sufficient for the branch of the service he wished to enter. He would not say anything against the paternal solicitude of the Vice-Chancellor, but he must say that it was most extraordinary that that confession should have been deliberately made, and that the War Office should have said they could not blame the Vice-Chancellor for making that recommendation. It showed how obvious it was that it was impossible for many men to go into the Army. He had made special inquiries in Cambridge, and had been told that there were many young men who were prevented, though ready to offer their services, from doing so by that clause in the Vice-Chancellor's memorandum.
But further, anyone who went into the Army had to look forward with an increasing anxiety to the time when he rose in rank. The low pay in the higher ranks was just as much a deterrent to a man who thought ahead, who did not go-into the Army to amuse himself, and who did not wish to run into debt. The proposals of the Secretary for War hardly seemed to him to meet the situation. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to promote in future to higher commands much more strictly by merit; to cheapen the cost of officers' clothing, to give them various other advantages; but that did not make the Army a profession in which a man would be able to live on the pay he received. A great many people were very much afraid of democratising the Army. Personally, and many others agreed with him, he would not be afraid of democratising the Army to any extent. Honours were open from the lowest ranks to the very highest in the Napoleonic armies. Every private soldier, it was said, carried a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. In one great Anglo-Saxon army, Cromwell's, the officers were many of them mere millers and blacksmiths and brewers. [Laughter.] Yes, and brewers, too, who in those days were humbler people than they were at present. [An Hon. Member: They brewed pure beer.] Again, another great Anglo-Saxon army, that of the Civil War in America, was democratic, and admitted to the position

1249
of officer any man of merit, however humble his birth or the class from which he came. What was wanted in the Army was more of the professional, the middle, and the manufacturing classes, who were the strongest classes in the country, and on whom the industrial prosperity of the nation chiefly depended. These were excluded from the Army now. It was perfectly true that there were in the Army the sons of many men who had made their money in manufactures; but he came from the middle of one of the great industrial districts in Yorkshire, and he said with certainty that there were hardly any of the sons of these manufacturers who ever went into the Army. They knew that they could not afford it, and their fathers very wisely prevented them. Therefore, he said, something more drastic was needed, than what the right hon. Gentleman had proposed. They wanted to find a minimum of pay on which a man could live as an officer in the Army. This great nation could afford to pay that minimum standard. They wanted to get good brains, and to pay the men better in the upper branches. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find it difficult, if he wanted to carry out his reforms, to entirely avoid sumptuary laws. He did not at present wish to do anything which might appear hostile to the progressive plans of the right hon. Gentleman, but if this question of expensive living and inadequate pay in the Army was not taken up voluntarily by the Government, there would be a movement in the country to demand it. The Government kept on speaking of the enthusiasm of the colonies for the mother country; but he was rather surprised I hat the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, had said nothing about the colonies or of asking them to join in this great Army reform. He thought that that was to be regretted, but they might be quite certain that the colonies would never take part in any Army in which they could not send their own sons to form some part of the officers. They would not be content that the only officers should be the sons of rich squatters; they would insist, if they were to take some part in it, that the Army should be made more democratic than now. In conclusion, he would say that in view of the sympathetic treatment
1250
of the general question by the right hon. the Secretary for War he would not move the motion of which he had given notice.
*MR. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid that in rising to move the motion standing in his name he recognised the extreme difficulty and delicacy of the task he had undertaken. The House was invited to form a decision on a question of personal right and justice to an individual. He deeply and unhesitatingly deplored the necessity of adopting that method, for he did not think it was a suitable one, and if there had been a better he would have taken it. For this discussion, however, he could not be blamed. It had all along been and still was in the power of the Secretary for War by granting an inquiry to prevent the discussion taking place. It was not any part of his intention to make a partisan attack upon the right hon. Gentleman. If he had had that desire, there was nothing which would have made him less inclined to gratify it than the brilliant speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night. Especially he did not dissent from that part of the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman expressed his adhesion to, and urged on tile House the policy of, only employing in peace commands generals who had shown themselves fit to hold those commands in war. He hoped the light hon. Gentleman would take it that that policy lay altogether outside of the area of any difference that might arise between them. He recognised further that it was a matter of common sense as well as simple justice that the Commander-in-Chief should choose his own officers, more especially when engaged in a campaign and bearing a responsibility which even the most foolish person in the country would not desire to share. He thought it was altogether right that the Commander-in-Chief and the Government should refuse to recall an officer from his command merely because there was a little popular clamour on the subject. The people of the country, however, had shown their willingness, almost their eagerness, to suspend their judgment in all such cases because they had perfect confidence in Lord Roberts, and there was a general feeling that they ought to approach the judgment of men

1251
who were risking their lives and reputation for the sake of the country with peculiar care and peculiar humility. There had been throughout the nation a very sincere desire that no man should be punished without a full, complete, and thorough trial.
The more he felt the delicacy of the task the more he felt it incumbent upon him to be perfectly frank with the House. One matter he would refer to in the outset. A very considerable prejudice had been created against General Colvile by the fact that he had published in the newspapers a statement of his treatment by the War Office. He did not defend that action of General Colvile's. It was most desirable and necessary that they should uphold and fortify the great tradition of Army reticence. Sometimes it led to hardship, but it was essential to discipline, and more than ever necessary now in view of the extreme activity displayed by the newspapers. He did not defend General Colvile's action, but he hoped the House would allow him to submit one or two considerations in regard to it. In the first place, reticence could not be all on one side. If their generals were never to take means of vindicating themselves publicly, then he ventured to think that a little reticence should be observed by the War Office. When General Colvile returned to this country the first thing which he saw was a newspaper paragraph, which was obviously inspired.
MR. BRODRICK: The only statement I saw came from Gibraltar, and could not have come from the War Office.
*MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: So far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, I entirely accept his disclaimer. On the other hand, if he denies that the statement came from the War Office, then I must invite him to perfect his information. But I will read the article, so that the House may judge of its character,

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  GENERAL COLVILE'S POSITION.

    AN IRREVOCABLE DECISION.
    "The Daily Mail learns that the communication to the Press relative to the request for General Colvile's resignation did not emanate from the War Office.
    "The request was, of course, made with the full acquiescence and authority of the Secretary
    1252
    of State for War after minute and full inquiries had been instituted into the affair at Lindley as well as that at Sanna's Post.
    "No further investigation is considered necessary by the authorities, who fully recognise the gravity and importance of the step they have taken.
    "General Colvile will, despite his attitude on the matter, have to bow to the inevitable, and, though naturally considerable sympathy will be felt for an officer who has served his country in several campaigns, the decision is irrevocable.
    "The General's pay ceased from the date on which the notification reached him, and no action on his part can affect the decision which has been arrived at by the Secretary of State and his advisers."
    If that be not a communication which comes from the War Office, then a miracle must have happened, and if it had so happened it was not with the knowledge of General Colvile, and he was entitled to assume that that article came from the War Office. Even apart from that, I shall presently show the House that there was most grievous provocation. In the meantime, I shall only say that I believe that what General Colvile did he did in anger; his action was not calculated or premeditated; it was brought about by the most justifiable resentment aroused by gross insult and intolerable wrong. And, again, what other course was open to him? What other appeal had he? None whatever. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the hon. Member for Chester, the other day gave the following reply—
    "No officer has a right to appeal to a court martial, but to the Commander-in-Chief and to the Sovereign in accordance with Section 42 of the Army Act."
    Precisely. Having been condemned by the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with Lord Roberts, he is graciously allowed to appeal to Lord Roberts in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman.
    The case I have to submit to the House is not the propriety of publication. It is not the action of the War Office in placing General Colvile on retired pay, although I admit that I have a natural curiosity to learn by what series of irregularities the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the amount of, what has been euphemistically called, a "special pension." although the pleasant phrase hardly does justice to the fact that it is £100 a year less than General Colvile

    1253
    was entitled to receive. I want to know what went before that. It is said that General Colvile was put out of court by what he did in making a public statement. I do not admit it. But if he were, we are not out of court. We are still entitled to consider the right hon. gentleman's management of our army.
    Now, Sir, I am very much confirmed in my belief in the necessity of some inquiry by the extraordinary ignorance lately displayed by the Secretary of State for War as to certain matters nearly affecting General Colvile's claim to consideration. I think he adopted a view which we all endorse when he explained lately in the case of Sir George White and others that their general service was to be taken into account in estimating any particular defect of theirs. I submit he was bound to do that in General Colvile's case. The right hon. Gentleman told the House, in answer to a question, that General Colvile had sent on to the Commander-in-Chief no report on the battle of Paardeberg. The fact is that he did send in such a report, but the right hon. Gentleman did not know even a few weeks ago that any report was sent to Lord Roberts. That report is here. I can give it to the right hon. gentleman. I have evidence of its being written at the time, the evidence of the officer who wrote it to dictation from General Colvile, and the evidence of a letter from Lord Roberts's secretary, who wrote requiring some little alterations in it—of no importance— and this despatch bears so closely on General Colvile's services in this war that no judgment of his case can possibly be complete or final until it is taken into account. But the case itself amply justifies the demand for inquiry. Consider the steps by which this matter has reached its present unhappy position. On the 29th of June Lord Roberts had an interview with General Colvile at Pretoria, an interview which lasted a quarter of an hour. At that interview the affairs at Sanna's Post and Lindley were discussed. Lord Roberts said he was dissatisfied, and that he had broken up General Colvile's command; and he asked him what he would like to do. General Colvile said he wished to go home, and Lord Roberts assented. He reached this country in July, and gave Lord Wolseley a detailed account, ver-
    1254
    bally and in writing, of what took place at Sauna's Post and Lindley, After this General Colvile received a memorandum from Lord Roberts on Sanna's Post, dated 21st of May, and I offer that to the right hon. Gentleman as an interesting specimen for his museum of military delays.
    Now, General Colvile had up to this point no official intimation that an inquiry was being made, and he was never given an opportunity of making an official defence. When he had his interview with Lord Roberts he did not know that he was on his trial. Between the 9th and 31st of August, however, a report from Lord Roberts was at last received by the War Office, and on the 15th of September General Colvile received the following letter, dated from the War Office;—
    Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to inform you that the Commander-in-Chief has approved of your resuming the command of the Infantry Brigade at Gibraltar from the 1st of October next to complete your period of service therein, exclusive of the time you were serving in South Africa, and I am to request that you will hold yourself in readiness to embark in time to take up the duties on the above date.
    Please acknowledge the receipt hereof, and return enclosed family form to this department.
    I am, Sir,
    Your obedient servant,
    (Signed) H. C. B. FARRANT,
    A.A.G. for A.G.
    Now I submit that that is a decision on General Colvile's case and conduct. I know from a personal letter that the case had been considered on the basis of Lord Roberts's report and General Colvile's statement. I know the decision was arrived at three and a half months after the Lindley incident, and two and a half months after General Colvile's conversation with Lord Roberts at Pretoria and after Lord Roberts's report to the War Office. I think we are entitled to assume that what Sir H. Colvile did in connection with the loss of the Yeomanry at Lindley was considered in the decision arrived at by Lord Wolseley. Therefore the case was tried and decided by those who had a full statement before them from both sides. Lord Roberts, when he was in Africa, had no written statements in answer to any charges. He had only the despatch of the march from Wynburg to Heilbron. He had no other statement in writing, only his

    1255
    recollection of the very short conversation which took place between him and General Colvile at Pretoria. Now his case having, as I say, been considered, the House will easily imagine the surprise with which General Colvile received a letter some months after marked "Confidential," but which I do not now treat as a confidential letter for several reasons, which will be apparent to the House when I read it. In the first place, it was the only official intimation which he received of his having been deprived of his command; secondly, it contained the only statement of the grounds on which he was removed; thirdly, a copy was sent to Sir George White; and, fourthly, that the letter was subsequently referred to in official correspondence. Such a letter as this I cannot, having passed, treat as confidential. The letter runs as follows—
    War Office, 16th December, 1900.
    My dear General, In the temporary absence of the Military Secretary, an unpleasant duty devolves on me.
    The Secretary of State having discussed by telegraph the incidents of the surrender of No. XIII. Imperial Yeomanry battalion, concurs with Lord Roberts that you were mainly responsible for the surrender, and has reluctantly come to the conclusion that you cannot be permitted to retain your command.
    I am directed to request you will hand in your resignation to Sir George White on receipt of this letter and quit Gibraltar.
    I am sending a copy of this letter to Sir George, but do not propose to write through the usual channel, as it may be less vexations to you if the resignation appears to be voluntary.
    Yours truly,
    (Signed) EVELYN WOOD, A.G.
    That letter was subsequently, and, I venture to say, inaccurately described in a letter of the 19th January last, in which occurs the following—
    "Towards the end of December last you were informed in a confidential letter from the Adjutant-General that the Secretary of State, concurring with the recommendation by telegram from Lord Roberts, had reluctantly come to the conclusion that you could not be permitted to retain your command, and you were given the opportunity of resigning it."
    In the first place, I want to call attention to the slight discrepancy—it may be nothing more—between the two statements which I want explained. The first letter states that the Secretary for War has come to the conclusion that General Colvile cannot be permitted to retain his command, and the second letter states that the Secretary of State concurs
    1256
    in the recommendation by telegram from Lord Roberts. Did the recommendation come from Lord Roberts and the right hon. Gentleman concur, or did the right hon. Gentleman receive a military criticism from Lord Roberts and initiate the recommendation? A simple question to which I desire an answer is, Did Lord Roberts know or did he not when he arrived at Gibraltar that General Colvile had been removed? There is a very gross inaccuracy in the second letter in the statement that "you were given an opportunity to resign." The real fact appears to be that General Colvile was not given any opportunity to resign even if he chose. He saw Sir George White and said he refused to resign, and Sir George White's reply was that his command had become vacant, and that his instructions were that General Colvile must quit Gibraltar immediately. If that is voluntary resignation I do not know what compulsion is, unless it means that General Colvile was to be taken home by force. If there had been any doubt in General Colvile's mind that he had been compulsorily and finally removed it would have been put an end to by the inspired article which appeared in the Daily Mail.
    I need say nothing more of the provocation under which General Colvile took the action he did. I do not defend that action, but I say the Government gave him great provocation—provocation that was boundless and unpardonable. I want the explanation. Why was the case of General Colvile re-opened? Why was the decision of the Commander-in-Chief reversed? Why was General Colvile removed from his command without an opportunity of meeting any charges whatever? It will be noticed that the ground of his removal was explicitly stated in Sir Evelyn Wood's letter—his failure to relieve the Yeomanry at Lindley. That was the charge on which General Colvile had been condemned. He knew of no other. Other charges had, indeed, been referred to. His action at Sanna's Post was criticised. What was wrong with it has never been stated in definite and I clear terms to him since this first inquiry took place. I am quite prepared to meet what is said on that point. Another charge has been spoken of outside this House, and a statement has been attri-

    1257
    buted to those who stood high at the War Office that General Colvile was deprived of his command on a charge of cowardice. I will not stoop to meet that charge until it is made, but I cannot altogether ignore it. In view of these rumours about a charge that ought never to have been made behind a man's back. I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman either to make that charge with evidence, if it is to be made, or else to do General Colvile justice, as I am sure he will, by disclaiming any intention of making the charge. That is all I ask. Let us, at all events, have all the charges before us, and have done with all the mystery that has been accumulating about this business. Let us have all the cards on the table, so that we may know what to think and how to act.
    The matter of Lindley has been definitely alleged as the ground of General Colvile's removal, and therefore I am compelled to deal with it very shortly. I do not, of course, offer any opinion on the military questions involved. The Mouse would properly regard such opinions as worthless; but the view has been put forward that then1 was that in General Colvile's action which rightly created prejudice against him—prejudice not against his military judgment and ability, but against his character as a man and a soldier. And in that connection I am hound to say something about this incident, for we require of a soldier, not only that he should be skilful and have foresight and personal courage, but that he should be chivalrous—that he should be ready to help other men and be willing to take risks on their behalf, and that he should not fight for his own hand, but in loyal comradeship with other men, and direct his efforts to the end of a victory common to him with them. I must, therefore, submit a few facts to the House. Now, what happened so far as General Colvile was concerned in connection with the Lindley episode was this. On May 19th of last year the Chief of the Staff telegraphed to General Colvile to say that the 12th Division was arriving at Wynburg, and that he should therefore join the remainder of his division at Ventersburg; that he should wait at Wynburg for a battery of Field Artillery; that he would be joined by some Eastern Province Horse on the 21st; and that the 13th
    1258
    Battalion of Yeomanry was to meet him on a day to be announced. On 20th May the Chief of the Staff sent the following cipher telegram:—
    "From Ventersburg the Highland Brigade march to Lindley, and thence to Heilbron. Brigade will be concentrated at Ventersburg 23rd, reach Lindley 26th, Heilbron 29th."
    Those, it will be observed, were very precise instructions as to places and times. Later, on the same day, he received a second telegram from the Chief of the Staff:—
    "Only two companies of 13th Battalion of Yeomanry, and possibly one company of Lovats Mounted Corps, will be able to join at Ventersburg, but other two Yeomanry companies will follow as soon as possible."
    The House will, therefore, see that General Colvile was despatched to his destination with such haste that he was not allowed to wait for his full complement of mounted men, although they were, essential to his safe progress. On 22nd May he left Wynburg. On the 23rd he arrived at Ventersburg; on the 24th he left. On the 26th, after some hours fighting, he arrived at Lindley, and on the next morning, 27th May, he marched from Lindley. He was engaged almost all day, and bivouacked in the evening north of Rhenoster River, twenty-three miles out from Lindley and nineteen miles from Heilbron, which place he had the strictest orders to reach the next day. The enemy were in front of him in numbers superior to his own, and they were also behind him and to his right. He was in that position when he received this letter—
    "Colonel Spragge to General Colvile.— Found no one in Lindley but Boers; have 500 men, but only one day's food. Slopped three miles back on Kroonstad road. I want help to get out without great loss."
    It was in such circumstances that General Colvile took the decision for which he has been visited with so appalling a punishment—the termination in disgrace of his career as a soldier. Let me invite the House to consider the facts as he knew them, and his conception of the circumstances. He had definite orders to be at various places on certain days. He was told above all to beat Heilbron on 29th May, audit was never explained to him why. He knew he was hurried away from Ventersburg without waiting for the necessary mounted men; he knew that the first line of the army was within striking

    1259
    distance of the Vaal River; he knew that Heilbron had been occupied by General Ian Hamilton; he knew it was the depot for General Bundle's force, and he knew that he himself was only rationed to arrive at Heilbron. It was natural to suppose from the precise orders which he had received, and from the peremptory haste with which he was sent off, that he was acting in a concerted and definite movement of which his force formed a part, and it was also natural that he should suppose that General Hamilton would be detained at Heilbron until his arrival, just as he himself had been detained at the precisely similar depôt and railway terminus of Wynburg in precisely analogous circumstances. It was natural to believe that, and the proof that he did believe it, if proof be needed, is that he sent a message from Lindley to Heilbron asking that the mounted men whom he believed to have gone there should be sent to him, as he was in need of them. That message never reached Heilbron, because General Colvile's supposition was wrong. He was not taking part in a combined movement. General Hamilton had left Heilbron, and when General Colvile got near it it, was occupied by the Boers. Still I submit that his was a natural supposition. No doubt a general is expected to exercise discretion in carrying out his orders, but he can only exercise discretion if he is given material for doing so. He cannot exercise discretion if he is not told what general plan is being followed, and to what result he is contributing. If he is given the orders of a subaltern ho can only act as a subaltern. In the second place, I think it will be, recognised that, in the absence of any contrary instructions or intimation, General Colvile had a knowledge of facts which compelled him to regard it as necessary that he should be at Heilbron on the 29th May whatever it might cost, because everything pointed to the necessity of his being there if Lord Roberts's plans were to be carried out. It was impossible for him to be there on 29th May if he went back to Lindley. As a matter of fact, he only reached Heilbron late in the evening of the 29th, after a good deal of fighting. It must be remembered that his force of infantrymen had only two days' rations, that
    1260
    they were provisioned only to Heilbron by direct route, that his ambulances were overflowing, that his ammunition was short, and that his oxen were dying on the road. It may be possible to take the view that he should have compromised the safety of his own force by going to the assistance of valuable mounted men, because mounted men were recognised by everyone as of the greatest importance. Granting that, however, I think the House will come to the conclusion that the view he had formed was perfectly intelligible and just, and I believe would commend itself in all the circumstances to military men. Moreover, in view of the circumstances and of what he believed to be Lord Roberts's intentions, he was bound to lead his force out, and that was his decision. He wrote to Colonel Spragge explaining his position, and advising him to retire on Kroonstad. Colonel Spragge had not said that he could not retire, but that he could retire with loss. It was General Colvile's view that he could retire, and he sent a message advising him to do so. I do not know whether that message ever reached Colonel Spragge or not, we know so little of the circumstances. Three messengers were sent to carry the message, but they were intercepted by the Boers, and a fourth messenger got to the railway in the evening, but whether Colonel Spragge actually received the message or not I do not know. As I have spoken of the Yeomanry I should like to say, in case there might be any misunderstanding, that I, for my part, do not wish to impute any blame to the Yeomanry who surrendered. The circumstances were fully stated in a manner very gratifying to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. It must be remembered that they were summoned to Lindley, and that they believed that General Colvile had telegraphed for them. They received a telegram asking them to come to Lindley, a telegram which was afterwards proved to have been forged by the Boers, because it purported to have left Lindley before General Colvile arrived there. They believed they had been summoned to Lindley; they were therefore perfectly entitled to expect help, and they were bound to remain. I do not pose as a military expert, but it should be

    1261
    remembered in any judgment formed of the Yeomanry that they surrendered, not because they could not in the first instance have escaped, but because they would not escape, as they considered that that would mean that they had failed to do what had been expected of them. I desire the House, however, to believe that this action of General Colvile's is not merely a case of a selfish, callous, unchivalrous disregard of other men. I submit that hon. Members should remove from their minds any erroneous impression of that kind which would prejudice them against the demand for an inquiry.
    I have very little more to add, and I apologise to the House for having troubled it at such length. The question I submit is whether in the case that I have laid before the House there is not something that demands inquiry. I fully admit the right of the Commander-in-Chief to control the discipline of the Army, but that is a right which, like every other right, is to be exercised subject to the control, the criticism, the censure of this House. The responsibility for its exercise rests primarily and finally with us, because it is a right which is derived from those whom we represent in this House, and I am bound to say that I think that the House cannot rid itself of the responsibility for seeing that justice is done to the soldier whose honour and fortunes are placed in its hands to-night, without any reserve or doubt or hesitation. I ask hon. Members to consider whether it would be in accord with our best sense of justice and equal rights to re-try a man already acquitted, to condemn a man on an accusation of which he was never informed, and to punish him on evidence which, he has allowed to challenge. It must be remembered that this is not merely a case of disciplinary regulation of the Army. It is not merely a ease of not offering employment to a general out of employment. This is the removal of a soldier from his command, and that is punishment—punishment which it is impossible for any words of mine to exaggerate. What greater punishment could you inflict on a man? You take from him in one act his career and his
    1262
    reputation with every circumstance of contumely and disgrace. He has worked all his life for his profession and the goodwill of his fellow countrymen. You deprive him of both without even the form of a trial. Who is this man? He is a soldier who has given to the arms of this country thirty years of brilliant service. He served you in the Nile campaign in 1884, and his name will be found mentioned to his honour in the despatches on El Teb and Tamai. On many occasions he was the only white man in charge of black troops on difficult expeditions, and twice he was sent single-handed to deal with mutinous or doubtful black troops. He fought in Burma and in the Toka expedition, and he rendered to the Imperial policy of this country in Uganda services of which I have heard those who were in charge of the foreign affairs of this country at the time speak in terms of grateful admiration. He is a scientific soldier who was appointed only a few years ago as umpire at the manœuvres on Salisbury Plain. [An HON. MEMBER laughed.] I am merely showing that to a man who had a first-rate position in the Army is being meted out punishment which could not be given to a common soldier in the ranks. Only once in these thirty years has he been the subject of an accusation. In 1885 he was accused by Major Kitchener of murdering six natives. The charge was investigated and was found to be devoid of foundation. Consider what his record is in the present war. He was sent to South Africa in charge of the Brigade of Guards. He served under Lord Methuen at Belmont, at the Modder River, and at Magersfontein, and he was referred to in despatches again and again in terms of the highest praise. Lord Methuen writes in one of his despatches (to select one case only out of many); "Major-General Colvile has already gained my entire confidence; nothing-is ever likely to shake his coolness." Lord Roberts appointed General Colvile to command the Ninth Division, and during the following three weeks he was actively engaged in the operations which culminated at Paardeberg. In relation to that victory his countrymen are under a debt of gratitude to General Colvile, of which, I believe, they are not sufficiently aware, for I

    1263
    have the high authority of Lord Roberts for urging that it was General Colvile who counselled and devised the brilliant attack of 27th February, by which a doubtful and critical position was turned into a decisive and fruitful victory. This is the man whose counsel and decision won the battle of Paardeberg—the greatest and most comprehensive victory in the campaign—and the right hon. Gentleman has devised for him a fitting reward
    Is it well that this officer should fie punished untried? That is the question which I place before the House. I am bound to say that I feel myself completely justified in having raised this question, when I reflect on the confusion and uncertainty which have been displayed—the vacillation of the War Office and then its blundering precipitancy—the puzzled consternation with which the country has regarded the right hon. Gentleman s proceedings, and the dismay with which the Army has viewed the somewhat rudimentary conception of justice which he has lately unfolded with so much simplicity. Let me repeat once more that tin; discipline of the Army must be despotic, but I submit that the more despotic the administration the more necessary is it that your actions should he wise and just. I am not so foolish as not to recognise the difficulty of challenging a decision arrived at by a brilliant and experienced Minister, especially when it is supported, as we are given to understand it is supported, by a Commander-in-Chief whom the people of this country regard with a gratitude and an admiration of which I shall not presume to say more than this—that they have been earned over and over again not only by his heroic services, but by the noble example of his life. Yet I do so appeal in this Mouse of Commons from this exercise of their despotic authority, to a despotism that is above all despotism, and an authority that is over every authority—to the great necessity to which the mind of every man in this House will bow, that justice and fair play shall guide our decisions and govern our actions.
    That is all I have to say, I thank the House for its consideration, and perhaps I may be allowed to submit one request to it. I am sure that in the
    1264
    minds of some hon. Members there must be some doubt as to the propriety of my action in raising this matter, and it is still more certain that by the manner in which I have done it, I may have given offence to those whom I would not willingly offend; well, let all that be my business. I beg hon. Members not to allow any mistakes of judgment on my part to prejudice them against the gallant and distinguished soldier whose case I have laid before the House.
    MR. GKETTON: I cannot keep silent when an appeal has been put before the House to obtain justice for a distinguished constituent of mine. We appeal for a full and a fair inquiry. I pass by the professional questions, which may be more fittingly referred to the court of inquiry which we are appealing to the House of Commons to support us in demanding, and I will only call attention to the very anomalous position in which the whole question is placed by the fact that it had already been investigated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the distinguished officer who recently held the position of Commander-in-Chief. A decision was arrived at by these two distinguished gentlemen. Then there was a change in the officials of the War Office, and with that change there came a practical reversal of the decision, without any reference to the man chiefly affected. I appeal to this distinguished assembly to support us in asking for this inquiry. We do not want to prejudge the case, but I think with the hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a prima facie case for a full, fair, and open inquiry. If the decision of the right hon. Gentleman is proved to he correct, then the country will be satisfied, and if it is proved to be wrong an injustice will be removed from a distinguished officer, and the House will have the satisfaction of knowing that justice has been done. The case has raised a great deal of feeling outside the House. In my own constituency petitions have been very largely signed asking for an inquiry, and in many parts of the country doubts have arisen as to the justice of the decision of the War Office. I appeal to hon. Member to listen with fair and calm minds to both sides, and to judge without prejudice, and I think they will see that there is a strong case indeed for an inquiry.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words in the opinion of this House, the public interest requires that a complete and immediate inquiry be made into all the circumstances connected with the removal from his command at Gibraltar of Major General Sir Henry Colvile, K.C.M.G., C.B.,' instead thereof."— (Mr. Charles Douglas.)
    Question proposed, "the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    *MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Speaker. I am sure that those who have listened to the two speeches of the hon. Gentlemen in support of the Amendment on this very delicate subject will be glad that the question has fallen into hands at once so capable and so moderate, because I think it is wry important that we should discuss questions of this kind with the dignity which befits an assembly like the Mouse of Commons. I confess that my own feelings in the matter are partly feelings of relief and partly of regret—relief because of opportunity of connecting a great many statements which have appeared about this case, and from what the hon. Member has said apparently a considerable amount of misapprehension prevails; but much more of regret because the motion which has been made makes it necessary for me to say things which I would rather have left unsaid about an officer who in the past has had an honourable career in Her Majesty's service. I do not say it in any way as a reproach to the hon. Member's, but it is noticeable that this case should have fallen into the hands of two hon. Members neither of whom has any special knowledge of the campaign in South Africa, and neither of whom has any military experience; and I note that the more because the House of Commons has a large number of Members at this moment who fulfil those conditions. I am sure the House will not complain if, as I am forced to discuss the question, I tell the House the truth, and the whole truth, with regard to it. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to apologise for in the course which has been taken by the War Office with regard to the late proceedings against Sir Henry Colvile.
    I should like to clear away two misconceptions which have not found their way into the speeches this evening, but about
    1266
    which a great deal has been said, and therefore if I did not contradict further misconception might possibly he produced. The first is that in this reconsideration of Sir Henry Colvile's case I acted on my own initiative and responsibility, without the advice of the military authorities who are bound to advise me in the circumstances. I shall show that this is absolutely the reverse of the fact. The second point, which I would not have referred to if it had not played a part in the statement of General Colvile himself, is the suggestion that the particular corps which was the subject of the Lindley inquiry—namely, the Yeomanry—had some special form of influence which it brought to bear, and which had in some way affected the decision. I think it due to that corps to say—I should not think it necessary to say it on my own behalf to the House—that no member of the corps, any friend of the corps, or any one directly or indirectly connected with the corps had ever in any way approached me—or, so far as I am aware, any member of the War Office—on the subject. They suffered severely in action. They felt, as all Englishmen would feel, the fate which fell upon them acutely; and they took their beating and subsequent hardships like soldiers. They never, so far as I am aware, attempted to get any interference on their behalf or' airy consideration of their case except such as the military authorities would naturally give to it.
    I will mention as briefly as I can what were the points which brought Lord Roberts's censure on General Colvile. The first was the action at Sauna's Post on 31st March last year. I will recapitulate in a few words what the position was at Sauna's Post when Genera] Colvile and his command arrived there. General Broadwood, with the cavalry brigade and horse artillery, had been attacked by the enemy in the neighbourhood of Thaba Nehu, about twenty miles to the cast of Sauna's Post. General Broadwood on the day before the action at Sauna's Post was warned about eleven o'clock that a force of Boers was advancing upon him. His outposts were about seven miles out, and they were told to hold the Boers as best they could. He

    1267
    telegraphed to Lord Roberts that he intended to fall back on the waterworks, and he proceeded to hold the Boers at a distance while his convoy got into line of march and fought its way to the waterworks at Sauna's Post. The effect of that was that the convoy arrived there during the night, and General Broadwood and his cavalry found his way to bivouac at three o'clock in the morning of the 31st. Before dawn came, however, the Boer guns opened on the whole bivouac and from the neighbouring hills. I have never myself been in such a position, but hon. Members who have been are aware that whatever may be done extreme confusion is certain to result—shells bursting among a number of natives and horses and mules stampeding. The consequence was that General Broadwood's convoy was in the greatest confusion; he despatched two batteries of horse artillery and mounted infantry to protect the convoy, and himself went with the cavalry to make head against the enemy. Without General Broadwood's knowledge the Boers had seized a spruit which had to be crossed by the convoy. They seized the convoy as it came across, and they seized one gun after another, and a most desperate struggle ensued. The horse antillery managed to get out somehow and save five of their guns by an amount of hard fighting, perseverance, and courage which I do not suppose has been surpassed in any action in the war. But General Broadwood, when he fell back, found the remnant of his horse artillery and mounted infantry in dire difficulties. He had himself to fight his way across the spruit, going some miles down, and after a very serious further opposition from the enemy he made his way to the near side of the spruit at Bloemfontein and began to draw up his scattered forces. That was at eleven o'clock on the 31st. General Broadwood had then been marching and fighting without intermission, except for an hour and a half, from eleven o'clock on the preceding day. His horses and his men had not been fed since four o'clock on the previous day and were all in a state of exhaustion. They had lost about one-third of their strength, seven of their guns, and the whole of their baggage. That was the moment when General Colvile's com-
    1268
    mand, consisting of about 4,000 fresh troops, arrived at Bushman's Kop, situated about two and a half miles from the post where General Broadwood was then drawn up. I am not now talking of anything that is in dispute, and anything that I have to state to the House, either as to this action or that at Lindley, will not be, so far as I am aware, of a character that is disputed by General Colvile. I propose to lay on the Table of the House, after I have quoted from it, the explanation which General Colvile himself gave. General Colvile arrived at Bushman's Kop at about eleven o'clock. At that moment tin.' position was as I have stated, but what remained of General Broadwood's force was then within two and a half miles of him, and also on the Bloemfontein side of the spruit. At that moment the guns which had been taken had not yet been moved off, and (is far as I myself can make out, from what I have read and heard officially on the subject, (hose guns were not removed until between twelve and one o'clock, in the day.
    MR. YERBURGH: I am very sorry to interrupt my right hon. friend, but he said that he was not making any statement disputed by General Colvile. But General Colvile distinctly traverses the statement that these guns were not removed until between twelve and one.
    *MR. BRODRICK: I extremely regret that I have to make this admission—General Colvile did not take the means to ascertain where t he guns were, and I he evidence I am obliged to give on that point is that of the other officers, who were in a position to give it. I was aware that General Colvile disputed that those guns had not been removed, but I was not aware that he disputed that they were not removed until between twelve and one.
    MR. YERBURGH: I think it is in his evidence.
    *MR. BRODRICK: General Colvile's own explanation was, that on arriving at Bushman's Kop he was informed that General Broadwood s brigade was then forming up about two miles to the east-

    1269
    ward. He at once sent his Deputy Assistant Adjutant General, Captain Ruggles-Brise, to General Broadwood with a message that he wished to see him. On his return Captain Ruggles-Brise reported that General Broadwood replied that he was too tired to come. "Under ordinary circumstances." said General Colvile, "I should have taken serious notice of such an answer, but as I gathered that under the circumstances in which he found himself, General Broadwood appeared to be completely broken down and incapable of co-operation, I thought it better to let it pass." Lord Roberts subsequently had occasion to comment on what appears to me to be an extraordinary narrative. The general whom he had sent to relieve General Broadwood and assist him, being himself two and a half miles from the scene of action, sent to General Broadwood an order to leave his troops, which were still in touch with the enemy, while there was still firing going on, in order to come two and a half miles to the rear to confer with General Colvile as to what was to be done. Lord Roberts thought it an action which was in itself a mistake, and be thought that in the situation in which General Broadwood found himself he was amply justified in refusing to leave his troops. I would sooner not have to inform the House what followed. General Colvile appears to have taken, as his own words show, serious exception to General Broadwood's behaviour. Even in his own account to Lord Roberts he practically takes credit that he did not immediately call to account from a disciplinary standpoint the officer who was commanding these hungry and wearied men still fighting with the enemy. But it is almost impossible to realise the state of mind which caused General Colvile to take the action he did after eleven o clock that day. At a moment when information as to the enemy's position was of the highest value, when he himself has admitted that it was imperative that he and General Broadwood should come together, on General Broadwood's explaining that he was unable to leave his troops General Colvile made no further effort whatever to come into touch with him. At an hour of the day when every moment was of importance with regard to the rescue of the guns, General Colvile,
    1270
    by his own account, waited till nearly two o clock without taking any steps in any direction whatever. At the moment when it was of the utmost importance that by bringing forward these fresh troops he should do what he could to restore confidence, he left General Broadwood's shattered force severely alone; and finally, without receiving any further indication from General Broadwood as to his situation, he marched his troops in another direction. General Colvile states that he had no intimation of the suggestion which Brigadier General Broadwood reports, that a direct advance on the spruit offered the best chance of assistance. Whichever way that statement cuts, it cuts, I fear, against General Colvile. General Broadwood states that he made that intimation. If he did not make it, then General Colvile neither knew what General Broadwood wished him to do, nor took pains to find it out. As between two generals in the field within two and a half miles of one another, one of whom possessed information but the other did not, that conduct seemed to Lord Roberts, and will seem, I think, to the House, very extraordinary. The result—the net result of these operations was this, that, after having left the men he had been sent to help without assistance. General Colvile blundered about with his force—when I use that word I mean he moved without proper guidance to show him where to go—until dark, when his men were wearied out; and alter they had marched twenty-three miles evening came on, and in the meantime the Boers had carried off the guns quietly and unmolested. Lord Roberts considered that he had shown a want of enterprise in this matter, which had the worst possible effect on those whom he bad to lead and those whom he had to relieve. One at least of the brigadiers finally endeavoured to get General Colvile where be ought to have marched—straight up to the enemy.
    MR. YERBURGH: What was the opinion of the other general with Sir Henry Colvile?
    *MR. BRODRICK: I do not think, Sir. I am in possession, of the other general's opinion. I have seen in General Colvile s own handwriting, in a letter that was not marked private, that he was not in the habit of taking the opinions of his

    1271
    subordinates. As the result of what happened, General Colvile lost Lord Roberts s confidence. Lord Roberts had not an opportunity for some time of hearing all the facts. General Broadwood's report did not reach him for three weeks afterwards. General Colvile's reply to General Broad wood did not reach him for a much longer period, and meantime Lord Roberts thought the best course was to take General Colvile away from the division and send him further back with a less command; and he awaited, with that moderation which has always distinguished him, the full knowledge of the event before be finally dealt with General Colvile's case. Unfortunately, before that occurred a fresh incident had taken place. I do not want to labour any of the incidents. General Colvile says he did know the Yeomanry were coming, and that he himself started on his inarch in the firm belief that his duty was simply to confine himself—
    *MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: I do not think I said, and I did not intend to say, he did not know the Yeomanry were coming. What he did not know was that they would come by that route. He expected, reasonably, that they would go by another route.
    *MR. BRODRICK: All these questions of the telegrams are quite immaterial to the case I have to present to the House, which is of the simplest character. General Colvile marched from Lindley on 27th May. When he had got to a point which the hon. Member calls twenty-three miles off, but is called by others eighteen miles, he received this message from Colonel Spragge, which he himself quotes:
    "Colonel Spragge to General Colville.—Found no one in Lindley but Boers. Five hundred men and only one day's food. Have stopped three miles back on the Kroonstad road. We want help to get out without great loss.—(Signed) B. SPRAGUE, Colonel."
    General Colvile received that message early on the morning of May 28th. As to whether General Colvile should have gone forward or back, that is a question with which I think military men are more fitted to deal than any of us who have not military experience. But I can say only this—that General Colvile was eighteen, twenty, or twenty-three miles from the scene of action, that he got this demand from a body of troops undoubtedly in difficulties, and that he had
    1272
    no means of knowing that they could get out of them without surrender. Other generals took a different course from his. Lord Methuen, who was forty-four miles away, marched forty-four miles in twenty-seven hours in trying to relieve the Yeomanry. General Rundle, who was forty-five miles off, threw himself on the Boers in front of him in an attempt to draw them off Lindley. He incurred a loss of 150 men, and even then he could not get through. The one man who sent back a message to this earnest appeal that Colonel Spragge was to find his way out of his difficulties as best he could was the only [officer in the Army who twice within eight weeks left a body of troops in difficulties without making the slightest effort, to relieve them. There is a French; maxim to which the great Napoleon expected his generals to conform Marcher toujours an feu. That is the maxim of our Army for all time. It has always been the maxim of our Army that when a body of your own troops are in difficulties you must go straight for them.
    I will state as briefly as possible why, when he had come home in consequence of these operations. Lord Roberts found it necessary to raise the question again. Lord Wolseley looked; into the question and made a recommendation to Lord Lansdowne. He thought that General Colvile should be allowed to return to Gibraltar. But there were two points which had altered. The first was that when the court of inquiry with regard to Lindley came before me at the beginning of December it was clearly proved that Colonel Spragge's surrender was not due to any default of Colonel Spragge himself; that he could never have got out of his own difficulties; that he had done all that man could do, and that he and those who were with him were guiltless of any lack of military talent in having to surrender. But there was another point. As far as I was concerned, I did not take up this question, as has been suggested, as a mere question of seizing on something and then framing a charge against an officer already tried. The result of the inquiry was brought before me by the acting Commander-in-Chief, Sir Evelyn Wood, who made various recommendations, I saw by the official Papers that

    1273
    though Lord Wolseley had made a recommendation to Lord Lansdowne, and had before him an official report as to General Colvile's conduct in the field by Lord Roberts, yet Lord Wolseley had never communicated with Lord Roberts, and had never asked his opinion as to whether the employment of General Colvile in the field being deemed to be undesirable, his employment at home was not also undesirable. It seems to me that there was no opinion on that point so important as the opinion of Lord Roberts, under whom Genera Col vile had served. I was asked by the hon. Member to say directly, did Lord Roberts know, before he arrived at Gibraltar, that General Colvile was to be removed? Most unquestionably he did. On Sir Evelyn Wood's making this recommendation, I telegraphed to Lord Roberts and mentioned to him that the effect of the court of inquiry at Lindley seemed to bear upon General Colvile's position, and I asked him for his opinion. He stated his opinion unhesitatingly in agreement with that of the Acting Commander-in-Chief, that General Colvile should not be allowed to retain his position at Gibraltar. I had no alternative in the matter. I know that I took a responsibility in regard to it; but I put it to the House, should I not have taken a much greater responsibility if, in face of the recommendations of the man under whom General Colvile had served and the officer who advised me at home, I had retained him in a command which, in their opinion, it was not desirable he should fill? The Secretary of State has the power, of course, of over-riding all his military advisers; but I do not think that the House of Commons will hold that, as a, rule, in such cases, he would be wise in doing so. What I did was to direct that, in the circumstances. General Colvile should be communicated with quietly and should be given an opportunity of resigning. The hon. Member said that was compulsory resignation. It may have been; but it would have proceeded from General Colvile himself; and it would not have been necessary to call public attention to it. If General Colvile had intimated his desire to resign his command at Gibraltar, no further notice of any kind would have been taken.
    *MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: My point
    1274
    is that that is not voluntary which one is compelled to do.
    *MR. BRODRICK: The question is whether a public stigma would have been put upon General Colvile. That is what I wished to avoid. After that General Colvile's action cannot be defended by anyone. He left for England. He did not avail himself of his right of appeal to the Commander-in-Chief. He made no representation to the War Office. He immediately published what he called a justification, but which consisted rather of an attack upon the staff officers in the Transvaal; and which also included, I regret to say, what appeared to be some ungenerous sneers against the cavalry whom he had found it impossible to relieve. And obviously it is impossible that officers, whether on the Full-pay List or the Half-pay List, should be allowed to make reflections on their superiors as General Colvile did. He was placed on retired pay, and any officer who follows his example will necessarily share the same fate.
    I will just say distinctly what is Lord Roberts's opinion with regard to General Colvile's position. I will say, first, that Lord Wolseley by no means exonerated I him when he allowed him to go back to Gibraltar. On the contrary, he stated his view in regard to Sauna's Post, that whether he could have captured the guns or not he ought to have tried. Lord Roberts stated that, in his opinion, on two occasions in the field General Colvile had shown a want of forwardness, of enterprise, and of sound judgment which are essential qualifications for a command. He considered that in twice leaving a body of cavalry in difficulties he set an example which, if followed, would be fatal to an army in the field. Other circumstances had come to Lord Roberts's notice in which General Colvile's relations with his subordinates and the absence of sufficient control and supervision in his command, were such as to seriously impair the confidence which troops should have in their leaders. I make that statement by Lord Roberts's desire. Under these conditions Lord Roberts felt that the retention of General Colvile in his command at Gibraltar, being in principle indefensible, would have a prejudicial effect on the army in South Africa, and, in agreeing that he should not be retained in command, Lord

    1275
    Roberts considered that even then he would be dealt with much more leniently than would have been the case had he been brought to a court-martial for his conduct at Sanna's Post and Lindley. I am myself strongly in favour, where possible, of bringing an officer to a court-martial; but I am not at all convinced that, if this House does not accept the views of Lord Roberts, Sir Evelyn Wood, Lord Kitchener, and other officers of that character, it will more readily accept the views of officers of less distinction who may preside over the court-martial.
    I would like to say one word as to my own action in the matter. I have had to remove a considerable number of officers on different grounds. Those officers mostly have no high connections, no powerful friends, no access to the press, but their career is every bit as important to them, and the tragedy of the loss of their position is every bit as great as that of the highest placed officer in the Army. In this case there is no private pressure which could be exerted upon me which has not been exerted. There is no degree of false statement in the press which has not been made in certain organs; there has been a continuous stream of attempts to influence, corruptly as I consider, the judgment of those who Mere forced to come to a decision against a general who had this distinction only as compared with other officers—that he had occupied the unique position of commanding the Brigade of Guards. I am willing to take any odium on myself in such matters, but I will not give way to this sort of clamour. I will not accept the view that because a man has powerful friends he is to be retained in a command for which nearly every man who served in South Africa, knowing that he had been sent home for incapacity in the field, considered him unfit. To that I will stand, whether I am attacked or applauded, whether I am criticised or encouraged, whether I am followed or not followed. So long as I hold the position I now hold these things shall not be done with impunity. Lord Roberts has received every distinction that a man can receive from a grateful Sovereign and from his fellow-countrymen, but all those decorations that have been so fitly worn and all those high titles so nobly won would be as travesty and tinsel if they are not to be accompanied by the confidence of his fellow-countrymen with respect to his decision as to
    1276
    comrades with whom he has served in the profession to which he has given his life. It is for that reason that I earnestly beg the House to put confidence in the Government in these matters.
    I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to divide on this motion. I should regret the acceptance of it more than any motion that could be put before the House at this moment. I ask the House to have some confidence in the Commander-in-Chief, and not to open the door more widely to proposals of this character, and to remember that if these decisions are to be made the subject of continued discussion in this House, they must militate against the discipline of the Army, and are, not likely to add to the credit of the House of Commons.
    It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

SUPPLY [4th March].
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [4th March].

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  1. "That an additional number of men and boys, not exceeding 600, be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
  2. "That an additional sum, not exceeding £1,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

  £

  Vote 1. Wages, etc, of Officers, etc.

  500

  Vote 2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  84,000

  Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

  Section I. Personnel.

  98,500

  Section II. Matériel

  630,000

  Section III. Contract Work

  207,000

  Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  230,000

  Total

  £1,250,000."

  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

LORD HENLEY.
Petition of Frederic Henley, Baron Henley of Chardstock, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
The Lord Gerard took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Brampton and Piccadilly Circus Railway [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Cambrian Railways Bill
  ought to be dispensed with.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  South Yorkshire Electric Power Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, provided that the proposed exemption of the undertaking from the provisions of Section 81 of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, be struck out of the Bill.
  Read, and agreed to.

  HARROGATE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  A petition of Messrs. Sharpe, Parker, Pritchards, Barium, and Lawford, of 9, Bridge Street, Westminster, parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of Leeds Corporation, praying
  1138
  to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered To-morrow, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.

  OTLEY GAS BILL [H.L.]
    COWES FERRY BILL [H.L.]

      HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
      MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (CANADA DOCK WORKS, ETC.) BILL [H. L.].
      SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT (WATER) BILL [H. L.].
      TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS BILL.
      CHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
      ALFRETON GAS BILL [H. L.].
      CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 1.) BILL [H.L.].
      CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP STEAD RAILWAY (No. 2.) BILL [H. L.].
      EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      SOUTH WESTERN AND ISLE OF WIGHT JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H. L.].
      DOVER GAS BILL [H. L.].
      BIRMINGHAM (CITY) TRAMWAYS BILL [H. L.].
      WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL [H. L.].
      Read 2a

  DONCASTER TITHE TRUST BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).
  PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    STRATTON AND BUDE GAS BILL [H.L.]
    Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1901.
    NAVY (WATER-TUBE BEILERS).
    Interim Report of the Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to consider certain questions respecting modern types of boilers for naval purposes.
    EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT MESSRS. CURTIS AND HARVEY'S FACTORY AT TRIMLEY MARSH, SUFFOLK.
    Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending explosions which occurred in the mixing house and stove at the factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Trimley Marsh, Suffolk, on the 28th November, 1900.
    ARMY (YEOMANRY CAVALRY).
    Training Return for 1900.

    PATENTS ACTS.
    Report of the Committee appointed by the Beard of Trade to inquire into the working of the Patents Acts on certain specified questions.
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    LUNACY.
    Return of all sums received by the Visitors of Lunatics for travelling expenses or upon any other account from the 1st January to the 31st December, 1900.

    POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON).
    Orders made by the Council of the County Borough of Brighton on 4th June,1896, 19th January, 1899, and 21st January, 1901, altering certain polling districts in the borough.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITAL TENTS AND WAGONS.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Perhaps the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War can now give me the result of his inquiries with regard to the despatch of tents and ambulance wagons to South Africa.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD RAGLAN): My Lords, the Hospitals Commission, as your Lord ships will remember, mentioned favourably only the tortoise tents, tents of the Indian pattern, and ordinary Ordnance Store pattern; 429 of these latter have been sent to South Africa, of which 153 have been despatched since 1st December last; 1,210 Indian pattern tents have been already sent, and 1,000 more have been ordered from India. No tortoise tents have been sent out lately. I think I explained in my speech that this pattern has not realised the expectations at first formed in regard to it. As to wagons, eighty-five of a new pattern were sent out early last year, and thirty wagons which are considered superior to the Ordnance Store pattern have been built by the Ordnance Store Department at Pietermaritzburg, but no new pattern wagons have been sent out from here since the issue of the Report.

    LORD WOLSELEY'S MEMORANDUM TO LORD SALISBURY.
    THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I wish to put a question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the Minute written by the late Commander-in-Chief of the Army which he quoted in his speech on Monday last.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The Paper will, I understand, be presented by the War Office. I only received notice a few minutes ago that the noble Earl would ask this question, and I therefore have not been able to ascertain when it will be presented. But the Paper is in existence, and I imagine it will be presented forth with.

  NEW BILLS.
    COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to amend the law relating to county courts in Ireland—was presented by the Lord Ashbourne; read 1a; to be printed; and to lie road 2a on Friday next. (No. 17.)
    OATH AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINES REPEAL BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to repeal the Oath against Roman Catholic doctrines—was presented by the Lord Braye; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 18.)
    SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to provide for the earlier closing of shops—was presented by the Lord Avebury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 19.)
    MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
    His Majesty's message considered (according to Order). Then it, was moved that an humble address be presented to His Majesty to return to His Majesty the thanks of this House for His most gracious message, and to assure His Majesty that this House will immediately proceed to the consideration thereof in such a manner as shall demonstrate their zeal, duty, and affectionate attachment to His Majesty, and a due regard to the rank and dignity of the Queen and the Royal Family (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Salisbury); the same was agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with white staves.

    CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment.
    LORD MONKSWELL: This Bill is word for word the same as that which passed through your Lordships' House last year. On that occasion it went to the Standing Committee and was very carefully considered. I do not think it will be necessary, therefore, that it should go to the Standing Committee again.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): If the Bill, as the
    1142
    noble Lord says, is word for word the same as that which was examined by the Standing Committee last year, I agree that it is quite unnecessary that it should go to the Standing Committee again.
    Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—

    E. Mansfield.

    E. Camperdown.

    L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

    L. Torphichen.

    L. Belhaven and Stenton.

    L. Fairlie (E. Glasgow).

    The said Report to be considered Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.