Sitting of 12 March 1901

Preamble
Another Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 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 Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, namely:—
Golborne Gas Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. (By ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*Mr. ALEXANDER BROWNsaid he regretted opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, because he was aware that the House was always anxious to get private Bill business out of the way as quickly as possible, and that the general practice was to send private Bills to a Select Committee. Had this been an ordinary case he thought that would have been the proper course to take, but he now proposed to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, because of exceptional circumstances. In most large towns it was obvious that the question of water supply was one of growing difficulty. He admitted that in some large towns the water supply must be considered to be a matter of public necessity, which should override private rights; but in this particular case there were circumstances which altered that presumption, which he would explain. The case of Wolverhampton differed from that of many other towns, because by reason of legislation which had been passed they bad had the opportunity of getting all the water they wanted, and there was no reason or necessity for them to come

1281
to Parliament at present for powers. The facts were very simple. In 1892 the House was engaged in considering a very large and magnificent scheme of water supply for Birmingham. As a Member of Parliament at that time, he remembered there was a great discussion upon that Hill, and that the proposal to go to South Wales for water for Birmingham met with a great deal of discussion, and much was said for and against the scheme. During the passage of that Bill through the House, at the instance of Wolverhampton, a clause was inserted, giving power to Wolverhampton under the Birmingham Act of 1892 to obtain water on demand from the Birmingham Corporation. That was the position of the law now, and Wolverhampton would be able, when the works were completed, to send in a requisition to Birmingham to get the water for its own population which it no doubt needed. They contended, therefore, that there was no need for Wolverhampton to come forward and ask for another independent supply when an enactment of the House had already given them the proper remedy. Before going into the case itself, which was really very simple, he would refer to Clause 62 of the Birmingham Bill, which gave power to Wolverhampton to demand water on giving one year s notice, and to demand a supply equal to 25 gallons per head of the population, and the cost of such supply was a charge regulated on a four per cent. basis, There was nothing in those provisions at all onerous or hard upon Wolverhampton, and the proper step for them to take would be to proceed with the powers under the Act, and apply to Birmingham as soon as possible. There was no need for them to come to Shropshire and put down works which would undoubtedly do great damage to the county and to the works in the Borough of Wenlock, and under the circumstances he thought the Bill ought not to be read a second time. Two reasons had been alleged why that Bill should be brought in as an alternative to the power that Wolverhampton already had to go to Birmingham. He had an extract from a speech by Mr. Alderman Marston, reported in the Midland Evening News of 5th January
1282
last, when the Chairman of the Water Company had been explaining his view of the matter, and had urged for consideration two facts which he said ought to bring him support for this Bill. The first was the time in which the supply was to be obtained, and the second the cost. Undoubtedly Wolverhampton wanted the water quickly, but he would point out that the Birmingham scheme could come into operation by 1902, and although there might be a delay, he thought that within two years, at any rate, the water would be in the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton. But this Bill provided five years for works, and ten years for compulsory powers. Therefore, if the element of time was to be considered it was obvious that by going to Birmingham they would get the water which Wolverhampton wanted quicker than by going for powers under this Bill. As to cost, he took Alderman Marston's figures. That gentleman estimated that the cost of going to Birmingham would be £80,000, and that that would be the capital charge laid upon Wolverhampton. But by this Bill the capital charge that was going to be laid upon them was £200,000. Therefore, it there was anything to be said on the element of cost, it was obviously in favour of the Birmingham scheme. Therefore he thought that upon those points there was evidence that the Second Beading of this Bill should not be agreed to, and if Wolverhampton wanted water it should hasten to give notice to Birmingham, and to get the water when Birmingham herself got it. His first contention was that if water was wanted Wolverhampton ought to put in force the powers of the Act of 1892, and that it was unfair to go to other quarters. As to the case of Shropshire against the Bill, that was a case which rested upon two grounds. There were large interests which it was alleged would seriously be damaged by putting down works in their neighbourhood. First there were the interests of the landowners, of the large proprietors, and the damage that would be done to their present water supply. Secondly, there wore those who got their supply from some public, authority. In explaining the Bill he would point out that certain works were to be put down,

1283
and certain wells were to be sunk in the red sandstone, or upper Bunter bed, which would inevitably affect all the wells in the neighbourhood. The Wolhampton Corporation had already a well there, which it was known had already had a very considerable effect upon the underground water in the district, and now they had been told that Wolverhampton was coming for further powers to put down new wells in the same locality. Therefore when pumping was going on they would find that all the water necessary for their supply would be taken from them, and they would have no remedy. In addition, there was the public supply for the borough of Wenlock, where at great cost a well had been put down, and it had been charged upon the rates. That well supplied a large number of parishes, and the effect of the new wells would be to empty and drain it, and consequently all the works that had been put down, for which £20,000 had been already borrowed, would become worthless. The House was now asked to sanction a new scheme which would ruin the Wenlock supply, and the ratepayers' money would be thrown away. The law on the subject might be explained as follows: If A were to dig a well to get water, and B wore to dig beside it, and B's well drained A's well, then A would have no remedy at law. The only remedy of A would be for him to dig deeper than B's well. But who was going to enter into competition with the Wolverhampton Corporation? The consequence was that in law there was no remedy whatever. The whole question was whether in allowing this Bill to go forward great damage should be done and no compensation received. He maintained that there was no remedy whatever, except to come to the House and ask them not to give a Second Reading to the Bill. The Wolverhampton Corporation were proposing to dig a well at Stapleford, which would drain the Wenlock well at Harrington, and if the Bill were passed all the money expended for the public supply of Wenlock would become useless, the taxpayers would be saddled with a heavy burden, and an injustice would be done. The two hon. Members for Wolverhampton, who were present, no doubt knew the locality, and he would point
1284
out to them that the cost of £20,000 arose from the fact that the water on one side had to be taken down the bed of the river up on the other side, and therefore the cost to a small and poor community like that would be considerable. For years the supply to the parishes mentioned had been deficient, and the difficulty so great that the Corporation of Wenlock now came forward to obtain the protection of the House for their works. To sum up his case, he would observe that Wolverhampton ought to go to Birmingham for their water supply. Having got their remedy and supply there was no reason for their doing an injury to Shropshire. Under this Bill, by Sections 13 and 15, they had very large roving powers, which, if exercised, would practically amount to a roving commission to go all over the place and take anything which might be chosen. In conclusion, he asked the House to throw out the Bill on the Second Beading, and he moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Alexander Hargreaves Brown.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
*Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid that a Wolverhampton alderman had declared that the I works going on now represented "a robbery of people without any compensation." The Bill proposed to treble the works. It had also been said that the water supply was insufficient for the growing needs of Wolverhampton, but the fact was that Parliament had already supplied the town with an inexhaustible store from the Birmingham reservoirs. Yet, before they had found out whether that would fail (and it never could fail), they came to Parliament with a new Bill, not to supply Wolverhampton with water, but to put profits in the pockets of the Wolverhampton ratepayers betaking other people's water. The chairman of the Water Committee had said that for the last thirty years they had made a fairly good profit out of the waterworks in Shropshire—waterworks,

1285
which had caused ruin to all the surrounding neighbourhood, had dried up all the wells, turned the grass meadows into and fields with great fissures in them, compelled the unfortunate villagers to go two or three miles for a can of water, and put the farmers at their wits' end for water. In the meantime those waterworks, which had scattered ruin over all the neighbourhood, had been putting profit into the pockets of the Wolverhampton ratepayers—"a fairly good profit." Therefore, this was not a Bill to supply a large population which was starved of water, but was a Bill to enable the ratepayers of Wolverhampton to make a profit out of the water, the taking away of which meant ruin to the people of Shropshire. He believed the House had never, in any of the water Bills brought before it, allowed the taking of anything but surplus water from any district, and had always left to the people enough to satisfy their wants. The great waterworks of the north, the great waterworks in Wales, had always been required to leave a sufficiency for those who lived in the neighbourhood. But this Bill proposed not to take the surplus or the surface water, but to go down 900 feet into the sandstone and abstract all the water-storage which supplied the district, and upon which the very existence of the district depended. Through the Upper Bunden bed of sandstone, he explained, the rain percolated quickly, and formed at 900 or 1,000 feet below a great storage of water, which came up again in springs and supplied the whole neighbourhood. If a pump were to be put into that storage, after a time the whole supply could be taken away. That had been proved by the well, 900 feet deep, which Wolverhampton had already put down. The pumping well provided 4,500,000 gallons per day sixteen years ago; it only now provided two and a half millions. If this Bill were passed it would mean that acres and acres of land in Shropshire would be converted into a desert. The whole county came forward as one man and protested against the Bill, and surely the 230,000 who formed the population had as good a title to consideration as the 170,000 inhabitants of Wolverhampton. Shropshire was fighting a principle which was of importance to every county
1286
council throughout the country, and Shropshire appealed to the representatives of counties to maintain the principle which had always been upheld by that House—that one county should not be deprived of a necessity of life which it possessed, in order to give it to another county. The Bill proposed that the Wolverhampton Corporation should be a new sanitary authority placed in Shropshire, a sanitary authority without representation, and in which not a single inhabitant of Shropshire would have a voice. Under that Bill the Corporation would have at its own option to supply water or not, for Section 5 said—
"If at any time after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act the Corporation are not furnishing or prepared on demand to furnish a sufficient supply of water in accordance with the provisions of this Act in any parish by this Act added to their limits for the supply of water, the local authority for the district comprising such parish may provide a supply in the whole or any part of such parish in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Acts, or any company, body, or person may apply for an Act of Parliament or Provisional Order for the purpose of supplying water in any part of such parish not sufficiently supplied by the Corporation as if in either case this Act had not passed."
and the Corporation had ten years option. If at the end of five years they were not supplying sufficient water, then the local authorities might provide it for themselves. But then the Corporation would already have taken all the water, and the local authority would be compelled to go elsewhere to find some at unreasonable cost. In other words, with a kind of cynicism seldom found in Acts of Parliament they said: "Go elsewhere; you must find your water elsewhere; we have taken it from you, and we decline to give you compensation." The Bill introduced new principles which were contrary to public policy, and contrary to the principles already applied by Parliament in private and general Acts. He appealed to the House not to introduce new forms and principles of legislation under the guise of private Bills.
*SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he felt overwhelmed by the description of the magnitude of the crimes of Wolverhampton which they had just heard. He could

1287
only tell the House a plain and simple story, without attempting at all to reply to the rhetoric and, if he might so call it, the imagination of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. The object of the Bill was to increase the supply of water available for the large manufacturing population of Wolverhampton and its neighbourhood. The history of the supply of water to Wolverhampton he could put in a nutshell. All acquainted with Wolverhampton knew that it was a difficult place to supply with water, on account of the height above the sea level, and the water supply had always been a problem of considerable difficulty. The House, after the indignation which had been expressed from Shropshire at the invasion of Salopian territory, would be surprised to learn that about fifty years ago some enterprising public-spirited landowners of Shropshire proposed to construct works there to supply Wolverhampton with water. That was the inception of the present scheme, and they got their supply from a Shropshire brook. That supply, however, was insufficient and unsatisfactory, it being subjected to a great deal of turbid matter coming down, making it inferior in quality and deficient in quantity. After the Wolverhampton Corporation had bought the waterworks, some thirty-five years ago, and taken the matter into their own hands, they sunk a well into the red sandstone. That operation was a success, and had supplied Wolverhampton with a large quantity of water during the last quarter of a century. The fullest and amplest consideration had previously been paid to all the riparian proprietors down the whole course of the brook where it joined the Severn, so that no complaint was ever made against the Corporation of Wolverhampton on that score—against the diversion of the water. It was bought and paid for, and he thought no legal proceedings had ever been taken against them in regard to the taking of the water. The population of Wolverhampton now supplied was about 154,000. The water supply was already taken by 137,000 of that population; there were still 15,000 within the limits unsupplied, and there were also large manufactories; and whether through their own fault
1288
or through their misfortune, the Corporation were now bound to complete the supply. He would tell the House a few facts, and they would see where the pressure arose. The average supply of water during 1900 was 2,977,000 gallons per day, and on many occasions last year four million gallons were required, one day there being 4,138,000 consumed. The present quantity of water on which the town could depend was practically only the three million, gallons to which he referred. The demand was daily increasing, and the very competent advisers of the Corporation of Wolverhampton said that they must supply a demand equal to twenty-five gallons per head, or 4,000,000 gallons per day, subject to a considerable increase. The present scheme was intended to meet that want, and the House would be very surprised to hear what a very small scheme that was. It really interfered only with a rural district containing a population of about 13,000 people, and the Wolverhampton Corporation were quite willing to recognise their obligation to the people in the locality, whose water it might be said they took. He ventured to say that if the Bill were allowed to go upstairs it would be seen that the Corporation would be compulsorily obliged to supply the whole of the inhabitants of the district, extending the limits to something like ten additional parishes. So that if there were any claims in consequence of the interference with wells, the Corporation would be ready and in a position to supply them with water. He would not dispute that there were local cases of hardship, where certain other wells might be interfered with in consequence of the sinking of new wells to great depths, and compensation ought to be given; but the idea of trying this case in the House of Commons by speeches on the one side and on the other, with no particle of reliable evidence, would be a travesty of the judicial functions of the House. A Committee ought to have the case to deal with, and no objection would be raised to the lotus standi of anybody who considered himself aggrieved. The hon. Member for the Oswestry Division had said that there had been a great infliction of pains and penalties, which had done his con-

1289
stituency much injury, but he had been told that their scheme had not yet come into action at all; they had not pumped a drop of water, and it the people of Much Wenlock were prepared to sell what they had already spent, in reference to sinking that well, then Wolverhampton were prepared to buy it, and to supply Much Wenlock with water. Surely that, again, was a case for a Committee. He frankly admitted that the most serious part of the case was that which had been referred to by the hon. Member for the Wellington Division, Wolverhampton Corporation, no doubt, had the power to take the water from Birmingham, but it had to be taken upon terms, and they had been advised that a certain proportion of the original capital cost of the Birmingham scheme would have to be paid. Then again there was the difference of levels to be considered, they having been informed that there was no point on the Birmingham route where the water could be taken by gravitation, and that it would have to be pumped, and that meant a great expenditure.
*MR. ALEXANDER BROWNsaid the cost of the pumping was included in the statement.
*SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he appreciated that point, but the ground on which the proposed scheme was recommended to the people of Wolverhampton, apart from the consideration of time, was that it would be a much more economical scheme than the supply from Birmingham. That, again, was a question for a Committee. As to the question of time, the Birmingham scheme was to be finished within ten years. He did not know if any hon. Member would say that it could be done within the remaining two years, but he was informed that a considerable time must elapse; and when the scheme was completed twelve months notice would have to lie given, and a proper aqueduct would have to be constructed from the point of junction into the town of Wolverhampton. Those were difficulties which had beset the Water Committee of that Corporation. This was no scheme promoted for the benefit of sonic interested individual, but was an
1290
undertaking promoted by a public company in the discharge of their public duty to supply their town with water, and they, acting under the best engineering advice, had come to the conclusion that this was not only the cheapest but the most effective and most expeditious means by which they could discharge their duty. As to the five years to which his hon. friend had alluded, that simply related to the fact that somebody else must do the work if the Corporation did not; but from the moment they put down a supply of water from the two wells which they proposed to sink, they would be obliged to supply water to that particular locality. This was eminently a case for a judicial investigation by a Committee upstairs. He was one of those who very firmly believed in the impartiality of a House of Commons Committee, and he was quite sure the people of Wolverhampton would readily accept the decision of such a Committee after hearing evidence and cross-examination, and after having had the advantage of the learned representatives on all sides. No obstacle would be given to any man giving evidence; and they did not desire to shelter themselves behind any technicalities. They had a simple duty to discharge to the public, and in endeavouring to do so they asked the House as a matter of fairness not to judge the case against them without a hearing, but to send the Bill upstairs, where it would be fully and impartially considered and satisfactorily dealt with.
*COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he cordially acknowledged the tone and temper in which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Fowler) had addressed himself to the question, and he only wished that that had been the temper which had characterised the negotiations and various dealings with the matter on the part of the Corporation of Wolverhampton. If it had been, then the state of things might have been very different; but there seemed to him to have been some evil influences which prevented the question being considered in the way in which such controversies ought to be approached. He felt bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman, and he appreciated his position in the House as much

1291
as anyone, and he had had the pleasure of often supporting him in his public acts; but on this occasion he really must challenge his consistency. He recollected when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing the Parish Councils Bill, in which he gave the right hon. Gentleman support, he used these words—
"The parish council will have the power of utilising any supply of water within the parish. There are a great many parishes which cannot bear the cost of waterworks, but which have an adequate supply of water if there were anybody to look after it, keep it pure, and see that it was distributed. There would, therefore, be great advantage in giving a parish council power to utilise a supply of water within the parish. I may say, in passing, that it is, of course, the absolute statutory duty of the district council, and we hope to make it more binding upon them, to see to the supply of water of every parish within their a rea."
Now, the right hon. Gentleman was in this position: every single parish council concerned in that particular area objected to the action which the right lion. Gentleman sought to force upon it. Every single district council objected most absolutely to the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to take away from them the very power which he conferred by that Act, and on which he laid that stress. And not only that. Every single person exercising any public office whatever throughout the whole county united in most absolute objection to forcible means of taking away from them that which years ago the right hon. Gentleman took great credit for conferring upon them. Therefore he begged leave in the first instance to impugn the right lion. Gentleman's consistency and the consistency of any of those who, having once upheld the extension of powers to rural districts, now, at a moment which seemed to them advisable, took away those powers and placed the authorities in the maw of some great corporation merely because they happened to be connected with it.
*SIR HENRY FOWLERasked to be allowed to explain. The Bill contained a clause which compelled the Corporation to sell the plant and works in any district to the local authority whenever they chose.
*Colonel KENYON-SLANEYasked how could those small local authorities
1292
by any accident be able to deal with questions of purchase and sale? The right hon. Gentleman might just as well toll him that he could go and buy out one of the great concerns of Wolverhampton to-morrow. The thing was an absurdity and a farce, and was well known to be such. He now knew that it was his duty to try and convince the House that it should in justice and equity take a course which was allowed to be rather unusual. In order that that might be done he wanted to indulge, like his hon. friend, in a short historical retrospect. His interests were to some extent personal. At all events his experience enabled him to lay before the House information which he could assure hon. Members was firsthand, and to the accuracy of every detail of which he publicly pledged himself. Firstly, people were apt to talk as if this was a Bill affecting landowners. In this case he asked them to remember that the landowners represented all the rural population living on the land. It was not a selfish vested interest on the part of the landowners, because, although they happened to be in the forefront of the battle by virtue of their interest in the land, it was a matter in which the landowners really represented everybody living on the land. There were several points to which he desired to ask the attention of the House. In the first place he could not help being rather amused at the right hon. Gentleman's description of the public-spirited landowners of Shropshire who came forward with a desire to supply Wolverhampton with water. The light hon. Gentleman, whose recollection was as good as his, smiled. In its inception this was a mere job for the purpose of enabling a certain landowner to sell his land at a high price, as he thought. It never was carried out, and as far as that went the public-spirited landowner was utterly sold. Passing to another question, the right hon. Gentleman had taken credit to himself and his fair-dealing Corporation for having given great consideration to the riparian owners. If consideration were given to the riparian owners, he assumed that it was long before the Corporation came into possession of those works, and that it was given by the company which preceded the Corporation, from whom

1293
the Corporation took the property. He was a riparian owner himself for some considerable distance; and he had never been able to trace the passage of a single sixpence on that account. It did not appear on any estate account with which he was acquainted—certainly not in his own; neither were there any records such as were usually kept in estate offices of anything of the sort having passed. The only case he knew of was where a sum of £700 was paid when the site at Cosford was compulsorily purchased by the company which preceded the Corporation. As he had promised, he must go more carefully into an historical retrospect. This was a consideration which the House would bear in mind in coming to a fair conclusion. The position of the Corporation was a position of having succeeded a company. That company in 1855 secured a Bill in Parliament, and on the strength of the power given to it by Parliament it proceeded to buy the site at Cosford. It was a matter of fact, which would not be disputed, that there was not a single reference made in that Act to any powers to sink any wells whatever. That Act conferred, and was meant to confer, solely power to deal with overground water. There was no allusion whatever to well sinking in that Act of 1855; neither was there, he believed, at that time the slightest intention to sink wells; nor was there, according to the geological knowledge of that time, any encouragement for people to make the Attempt. Anyhow, there was no such power there. The consequence was that Parliament, when they granted the present powers, did not safeguard the district in the matter of sinking wells. Had there been any mention of the possibility of wells being sunk, it was obvious that Parliament would have safeguarded the interests of the surrounding districts; but inasmuch as there was no reference made to any such thing, there were no safeguarding clauses, and the result was that they had been handed over, tied and bound, to the tender mercies of the Corporation, which had shown no mercy whatever, and had never made any attempt to show mercy to those whom it had victimised. He would ask the House to consider, not of course as affecting the
1294
Corporation, but the position, whether it did not almost amount to a fraud on Parliament that powers which Parliament gave for certain purposes should be used for other purposes, and that thereby Parliament should be deprived of the right to give that protection which otherwise it certainly would have given. In consequence of that action of 1855 great losses immediately began to be incurred in the neighbourhood. The water sank in the brook; the supply for cattle was affected; water for motive power was done away with, and it could not be used for the purpose of safeguarding mansions or farms from tire. In 1867 the Corporation bought out the company, and then became, under the same title and with the same limitations as their predecessors, the possessors of Cosford Works. The result was that as they pumped more water more damage accrued. Those immediately before them suffered, and more severely and heavily. Time after time they were asked whether they would consider the question of any reasonable compensation, and all consideration of that question was refused. In 1880, he thought, the Corporation sank this deep well of 918 feet. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that no public notice was given of that. None of them had any reason to know that this operation was being carried on, and they had not a chance, therefore, of opposing it, even if they had had the power. Of course, the House would appreciate that the sinking of a well did not lead to any immediate change in the neighbourhood. The results were gradual, and gradually and surely the results of the well sinking became apparent. He owned a property of some 3,000 acres immediately above the works at Cosford, in which the effects became very gradually but certainly apparent. His wells began to sink and he spent considerable sums in deepening them. They held for a short time and then gave out. They constantly failed. In 1889 he took the advice of an expert civil engineer, who compared the position with what had been in 1884, and he found that the water level between those years had been lowered by the action of the Cosford pumping by twenty-eight inches; that was to say, over five and a half inches in the year. Con-

1295
sequently this was the position—that for a mansion, several farms, many cottages, and for all the ordinary transactions of agricultural life, he had not one spoonful of water left, and he had no access to any other source whatever. Water had to be carried from one place to another in order to get on at all, and he had sometimes to rely on the rainfall. In 1889, when this desperate state of things had to be faced, he went to the Wolverhampton Corporation and saw the chairman of committee and the chief engineer of works. He laid before them the position in which he was placed, and they replied: "We have taken all your water; if you find any more water, Colonel Slaney, we will take that too, and we will not give you any compensation." The House could imagine, therefore, how bitterly he contrasted that reply with the language of the right hon. Gentleman when lie talked of the readiness and willingness of the Corporation, and admitted that compensation ought to be given. All these were incontrovertible and incontestable facts. The two gentlemen he saw conversed with him, and suggested it would be possible under certain circumstances to supply him with water. He asked what the conditions would be, and was informed that for a limited time, and only at a slightly preferential price, they would give him water on condition that he paid the whole cost price of laying down every main and pipe required in the system. The first calculation put before him was £800 for doing a little portion only of what was required. What was he to do? Well, it turned out that he became, within a year, possessed of another little property abutting on his former property some two miles from the works already erected, where he put up pumping works for resupplying his farms, his people, and himself. The cost of doing that had been over £3,000 in absolute cash, and would be practically over £5,000 in direct and indirect value. He need hardly say that he did not raise his rent in order to meet any part of that cost. It was an elementary right that every tenant should receive water from his landlord, at any rate he thought every tenant should receive water from his landlord; at all events, in his case
1296
every tenant had received it, and now he was enjoying that supply. But what position, he asked, would he and his people have been in if he had not had the means and good fortune to get that supply? The countryside would have been derelict. Agricultural operations could not be carried on without water, and it was idle to contend that this was a small case, and that he was asking for anything excessive. This was a serious example, and the House ought to take warning and apply the only remedy which was in its power. He had not calculated the probable future expenditure on renewals, etc., and no doubt a great part of the outlay would have to be renewed. As to what was now happening, he would say that some of the most valuable land was that along the edges of the brook referred to, and was formerly celebrated as hay-growing land. Now acres of it were absolutely broken into fissures and cracks, so large that it was not safe to turn stock upon it, and the value of the fields had almost entirely gone for agricultural purposes; in fact, in those districts where there was thirsty, light, dry soil the damage was spreading year by year, and the land becoming valueless. He thought the House would appreciate his putting a personal case before them, showing the results likely to follow the passing of this Bill. One of the first results of developing the existing well would in all geological probability be to deprive him of his source of water, provided at a cost of £5,000, on which all his district now absolutely depended, and as far as the Bill went there was not one atom of an idea of any compensation being provided for that. Let the House consider what it meant. Wolverhampton already had deprived him to the extent that he had put before the House, and they now came and said: "Give us further powers, of which one of the first results will be to take away from you that which you have provided for your people, and to replace you in the condition in which you were before you spent that money." He had intended to make a very strong appeal to the House on the subject of locus standi. Up to that afternoon no indication whatever had been given by Wolverhampton that they would not oppose, and oppose bitterly, his locus standi, and that of

1297
others in the same position as himself in this matter. He believed that now a concession on that point had been made, and he would not labour the point at large; but the House would appreciate that it would at all events have been handsomer fighting if the Corporation in the first instance had let them know they would give them that locus standi, so that they would have the elementary right of making their case known to the Committee to which the Bill might be referred. But there was nothing of that sort, and only that afternoon had he been informed that the opposition to his locus standi was to cease. As to some interesting facts in connection with this matter, he might say that not longer ago than 1900 the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Mr. Mansergh, delivered an address in which he made it clear enough for the understanding of laymen, or lawyers, that the law as it stood was absolutely a gross iniquity and injustice; and one of the objects he had in dealing with this ease sofully, and in laying it so thoroughly before the House, was that he hoped the case might go some step towards sweeping away a law which was absolutely obsolete and untenable. He might say that he was not the only person concerned in the Bill, and was not going to be the only sufferer. He had only used his own case as an illustration of what had happened, and therefore of what might presumably happen again. But, besides himself, there were all his neighbours who stood to suffer in the same way, fearing the same results from the same treatment, and he appealed to the House as heartily on their behalf as he did on his own. There was not one single local body the whole way throughout this area who did not join heart and soul in this opposition to what they considered would be a crushing misfortune brought upon them. Every public body—county councils, district councils, parish and urban district councils, and sanitary authorities—were all united in universal complaint that this measure would be ruin and destruction to them. With regard to the position of Much Wenlock, which had been laid before the House by his hon. friend, it had raised £20,000 of public money with the sanction of the Local Government Board for the purpose of a
1298
water supply; and when the right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, we will supply you with water," on his own showing he would not have water enough from those sources to supply Wolverhampton, or one half of it; he was bound to look after his own borough first; his own ratepayers would want all the water available from those wells, and he (the hon. Gentleman) and his people would have to take second place. Underground reservoirs were not continuously maintained at a certain level. When one was tapped no doubt they could draw a sufficient supply for a long time, but afterwards it would be found that one would be living on the capital of his water supply and not on the income. Therefore, in the case of Cosford, the well 918 feet deep had already diminished its supply by one half, at any rate by many thousands, or even by millions, of gallons, and that in only a comparatively short time. Therefore it was clear and evident that such a kind of supply was the most precarious and unsatisfactory source to reckon upon. Indeed, if he recollected rightly the evidence given in the case of the Birmingham Water Bill, many of the experts laid great stress on the fact that it ought to be the upland sources of water which the large towns should place reliance upon, rather than the underground well systems. Then he would pass to another instance, which he thought the House would appreciate. In Shifnal, where he resided, and which he therefore represented, there was this curious consideration in regard to the Bill. Shifnal had already, by the sanction of the Local Government Board, spent £10,000 in carrying out a sewerage system, which discharged into a brook. This Bill took the power to the Wolverhampton Corporation to inspect, interfere with, pull down, and to deal in any way with any works which affected the purity of the supply within the area over which they wished to be made free masters. If, therefore, this Bill passed, and those powers were exercised, they must spend another £10,000 in order to pump up to a high level that which they were now able to get rid of practically by gravitation. Again, Shifnal had an arrangement under which it would get its supply at a considerably less price than

1299
Wolverhampton would give it them, for if Wolverhampton got the powers; but Wolverhampton would want every drop it proposed to take from them, and the chance of the rural parish getting anything at all was nebulous and hazy. Their taking those powers would result in the piling of this additional agony upon a small rural population. Now, what did the Local Government Board say to that? Surely it was an absolute stultification of the trust and confidence that they should have, in them if they were to allow a Bill of this kind to pass, by which the whole of the money borrowed and spent was to be squandered. What confidence could there be, and how could small local bodies be encouraged to do work, and how could advantage be taken of these borrowing powers in order to supply the necessities of the localities if this were to be the position in which they were to find themselves? He had tried to put before the House sound arguments, and when the right hon. Gentleman talked of a sparse population of 13,000 the House must be asked to consider what the position of the respective policies was. At present there was a supply which it was not possible to get from any other source, and if it were taken away he did not know where the people would turn for that which, after many years seeking, they thought they had at last found. It being the fashion to take the strongest interest in the counties and localities, why should not he, as one of the Members, ask why a large Staffordshire town, ten or twelve miles over the borders of Shropshire, on another watershed, come in and take from the county of Salop that which that county wanted for itself? There was not in that any elementary justice or elementary right. The soil there was thirsty, and they themselves wanted all the water they could get; in fact, the two great needs at present were pure water and pure beer. He desired to warn the House against the possible use, that might be made of another power that lurked mysteriously in the clauses of the. Bill. There lurked there a power to take up to fifty acres of land anywhere where the Corporation of Wolverhampton could arrange to take it. Somebody had sunk a well producing sufficient water for their purposes. The Corporation became
1300
aware of it; under the operation of the clause, if they could only get, by paying a high price, some portion of the land, they would dump down one of those wells, and away would go the whole of that source of supply. In fact, they would dot the surface, of the country over with those dumped-down works, every one of them stripping and denuding some rural locality of the water they required. No one acknowledged more, than he that in the face, of the needs of a large population the rights of the minority must give way. He, accepted that, and was prepared to act up to that acceptance, but he maintained that the case was not established. He would say to the promoters of the, Bill, "You have not established your needs; you have not established the fact that you cannot supply your needs better and more equitably, and for a longer time, from other sources." He would like to reply to the argument that the whole, of the matter could be thrashed out before a Committee upstairs. This suggestion, seriously put, would be appreciated: "Go and spend more of your money upstairs in costs." There, was no reasoning in that. Here was a large Corporation commanding the rates, and they were told that they were to go and fight them before a Committee. To some members of Corporations like that it was an amusement, to some an interest—aye, and a matter of professional advancement—to be considered in fighting such matters. But what was the position of poor localities or of private individuals? The burden was so heavy as almost to deprive them of the ability to contest the cases at all. If they were now forced to go to a Committee they would fight, but ho could not hide the fact that in addition to the enormous impost which had already been placed upon him by the Wolverhampton Corporation, he should be mulcted in further sums in order to obtain justice upstairs. He hoped he, had shown that a principle was involved in this Bill, something to induce the, House to recognise that there was a case of common justice and equity against the Bill, and to induce the House to throw out the Bill on the Second Reading; and further, he hoped he had shown some good cause why the law officers of the Crown should no longer delay in bringing in an Act which would amend the

1301
monstrous, intolerable laws which now governed the subject of water supply.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I should like, with the permission of the House, to say a few words upon this question. I do not propose to follow my lion, friend, who has just made a most eloquent and powerful speech. I am quite sure that he will have the sympathy of the whole House in the personal grievances he has put forward with so much clearness and moderation, and the thanks of the House for having indicated to them the general danger which is involved in Bills of this kind, against which the House undoubtedly has to guard. I have a distinct interest in this measure, inasmuch as I represent the Corporation of Birmingham, and the taxpayers of Birmingham, who are responsible for the great works which that Corporation are carrying out. It is rather with a view of laying before the House one or two general considerations than with any expectations that I shall be able to follow my hon. friend in all the details which he has brought before the House that I now rise. Sir, I suppose the material interests of the Corporation of Birmingham are against this Bill. When we undertook our great scheme to bring water from Wales, at an enormous expenditure, we most readily accepted the responsibility of supplying all the places on the route who desired to take a supply, and I will say we did so most readily, in the first place, because it was a matter of justice to all those localities; in t he second place, we thought that to some extent they would share with us in the responsibility of the undertaking. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton was mistaken in reference to the terms of the arrangement ultimately made. I do not think the Corporation of Wolverhampton, had they decided to take their water from the supply of the Corporation of Birmingham, would have had to find any part of the original cost. The capital cost was provided by the Corporation of Birmingham. No doubt, if the cost is greatly increased, the cost of the water would be increased, and the price of the supply to any corporation on the route would be its cost price. But the
1302
Corporation of Birmingham was to make no profit in the matter; we were to supply at cost price any locality on the route. Therefore, I say that I think that the Corporation of Birmingham would be somewhat disappointed if the Corporation of Wolverhampton does not take advantage of this opportunity. But with regard to that point, I lay down my first general principle—when you give local authority to a district you ought practically to cease to interfere with its administration. The line which I am now laying clown is that so far as the affairs of the locality to which you have given local government are concerned, they should be employed as loyally as possible—that, in fact, you have no right to interfere unless some other interest is concerned. The moment an outside interest is concerned it may be this House is called upon to protect that outside interest. But so far as the policy of Wolverhampton is concerned in refusing to take its water from Birmingham, and in desiring to enter into a large and possibly speculative scheme of its own, we in Birmingham offer no observations. That is the business of the Corporation of Wolverhampton, and if it is their desire as a great corporation to enter upon the scheme, whatever we may think of it, we do not oppose. On the contrary, on the general principle we are prepared to support them. But, of course, there comes into the case the element of the position of outside authorities, and it is in regard to these authorities my hon. friend has just made his powerful appeal to the Mouse. There again I ask the House to take into account certain general considerations. My hon. friend behind me says truly, I have no doubt, that every small local authority on the route of this water supply is opposed to the Bill.
*COLONEL KENTON-SLANEY: Every corporation and every county council.
MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: But I hope my hon. friend will agree with me when I say that that ought not to be conclusive against them, because if you once admit that these local authorities are to have this power, and that their veto is to be accepted, you will find yourselves in the most serious difficulty with regard to

1303
other great towns whose supply of water depends absolutely upon power being given them to go to a distance. Where there is a vast population, where a great deal of the energy and wealth of the country is concentrated, and upon which the prosperity of the country depends, you must give them the means of living and having the water which is absolutely necessary to them. If they cannot get their water within their own limited space they must go outside, and therefore I conclude with the principle to which I hope I shall have the uanimous assent of the House, that the opposition of these local authorities is not in itself conclusive. But, Sir, on the other hand, nothing pan be more unjust than such, action as my hon. friend attributes to the Corporation of Wolverhampton in his own case, and I say that anyone in such a position would say that he had been subjected to an intolerable injustice. The action of the Corporation cannot be defended, and it is the duty of this House to prevent such action. What is the principle which I lay down in regard to water supply which must come from a distance? It is that the localities which are affected should not be injured, that all that the central bodies should be allowed to take is the surplus and nothing more, and that it shall be bound to supply to the localities first all the water in which they stand in need, to which they have a legitimate claim, and at a reasonable price—
*COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY:Fist.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: First; and only the surplus should be the property of the authority seeking this power. That I believe to be a perfectly fair principle to lay down. My hon. friend says this is a matter for scientific experts and not for this House. He says that if that principle is adopted there will be no surplus water. That is one of those questions which ought to go to a Committee. My feeling is that having regard to the principles, if I may venture so to call them, which I have laid down, this Bill should be sent, as all such Bills are, to a Committee, with, however, the expression of the opinion of the House that in no case should these districts he damnified by subsequent proceedings; that full protection should be put in the Bill for the
1304
future supply of water to the various localities concerned. I agree with my hon. friend that, in the Bill as it stands, there is no sufficient protection. I cannot doubt that such protection will be inserted by the Committee on the representation of tin? authorities concerned, and though I regret that they should be put to any expense, yet, as their interests are identical, I think they might combine in their opposition before the Committee, so that the cost to each individual or each authority may he very small.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Will the right hon. Member accept an Instruction to that effect?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in charge of the Bill, but if my hon. friend asked me if I would support an Instruction to that effect, most certainly I would, because it seems to me to be absolutely fair that outsiders should have a right to that protection.
*MR. ALEXANDER BROWN: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would include all public bodies as well as private bodies in that?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Clearly,it fortiori. If I say that a single individual, because he is a landowner, should not he unjustly treated, à fortiori I am prepared to do justice to those who represent the community or the district in which they reside. Subject to that understanding, I hope the Bill will be sent to a Committee. I hope the Committee will examine into the question, and if there be this surplus water, as is contended, I think we ought not to allow the prejudice or the suspicion, or even the irritation caused by past conduct on the part of the local authorities to interfere in what, after all, is an absolute necessity to the prosperity of a very large and important town.
SIR ALFRED HICKMANsaid that what this Bill really proposed to do was to provide an absolute necessity for 154,000 people. The Wolverhampton Corporation proposed to sink wells at a very great depth; in that way they got rid of the possibility of the interference with existing rights

1305
upon which such stress had been laid. As to the necessity for an improved water supply there could not be any doubt. The present supply from wells amounted to 3,000,000 gallons a day, but on many occasions the consumption had amounted to as much as 4,000,000 gallons a day. The Cosford brook ran through, a very cultivated district, and cattle were pastured on its banks; also, many cottages drained into the brook. In time of drought there was very little water, and in time of flood the water was very much too muddy to be used, so that the, water was insufficient at the present time even with the brook, and what it was proposed to do in the future was not to take any water at all from the brook. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that under the proposals of this Bill Wolverhampton would not have enough water, but the opinion of the most eminent experts was that the quantity which would be obtained would allow for about 6½ million gallons per day; that was fifty per cent. more than the present requirements. That would be sufficient not only for the town of Wolverhampton, but for the whole of the area which was supposed to be affected. It was said that water was a necessity of life and that it was a great grievance to take away their water from these small districts. That was true; but what Wolverhampton proposed was not to take away, but to give them water. He himself was in the position of a landowner on a small scale in the very area that had been mentioned. He had an ample supply of beautiful water, but he found it better and cheaper to take the Wolverhampton water and pay the Corporation for it rather than go to the expense and trouble of pumping his own water. Nobody would be in a worse position under this Bill; all the persons affected would have an ample supply of water at such a rate as should be considered by the Committee to be a fair rate. It was said that there was no need for this Bill, because Wolverhampton had powers to take the supply from Birmingham. That was quite true, but the Birmingham works would not be finished for something like three years. Then the terms were that when they were finished Wolverhampton must
1306
give twelve months notice before they would be entitled to take the water; further, there would have to be an arbitration at the expiration of the notice to decide what the terms should be. What was to become of Wolverhampton in the meantime? Were 154,000 people to be on a short supply of water for three or four years? Surely that was a question at any rate for the Committee to consider. He quite sympathised with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in regard to the mischief he had suffered by his fishing, and so on, being interfered with, but surely these were all questions which could be threshed out in the Committee, and the House would not reject altogether a Bill which was of such enormous importance to a large number of people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this was not so much a question of supplying people who were short of water, but that it was a commercial undertaking and intended to profit the Corporation of Wolverhampton. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have been acquainted with the facts, or he would never have made that statement. The truth was that last year the whole net available profit of the undertaking to the Corporation only amounted to about 2s. per house supplied. That was not a very extravagant profit. With regard to the opposition of the county councils and the rural district councils, he submitted that the expense of appearing before the Committee and giving evidence, on the subject would not be very formidable when divided between the riparian owners and these numerous local bodies. With regard to the matter of compensation, that again was a detail which would be settled by the Committee. The Corporation would not offer any objection to paying fair compensation. He reminded the House that the Wolverhampton Corporation had given a distinct pledge not only to give a full and ample supply of water to every person whose supply was interfered with, but that they would give that supply on such terms as the Committee might consider reasonable and fair. In conclusion, he submitted that the House ought not to throw out the Bill on the Second Reading, but should, following the ordinary practice, allow it to go before a Committee upstairs.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 239. (Division List No. 59.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Aird, Sir John

Graham, Henry Robert

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Anstruther, H. T.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Penn, John

Arrol, Sir William

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Reed, Sir Edw. Jas. (Cardiff)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Rentoul, James Alexander

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hain, Edward

Roe, Sir Thomas

Balfour, Maj K R(Christchurch

Hall, Edward Marshall

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Barlow, John Emmott

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bell, Richard

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Broadhurst, Henry

Helder, Augustus

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Helme, Nerval Watson

Scott, Chas. Prest wich (Leigh)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Caine, William Sproston

Holland, William Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Caldwell, James

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cameron, Robert

Horniman, Frederick John

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarshire)

Causton, Richard Knight

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cawley, Frederick

Jacoby, James Alfred

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Chapman, Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Spear, John Ward

Coddington, Sir William

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants-

Coghill, Douglas Harry

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kitson, Sir James

Stroyan, John

Colville, John

Langley, Batty

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Leng, Sir John

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, J. A. (Glam. Gower)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lough, Thomas

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

Crombie, John William

Lowe, Francis William

Tomkinson, James

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lowtber, Rt Hn J W (Cum Penr.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Kenna, Reginald

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan>

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Dunn, Sir William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Elibank, Master of

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Flower, Ernest

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mount, William Arthur

Yoxall, James Henry

Fuller, J. M. F.

Myers, William Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Newnes, Sir George

TELLERS FOE THE AYES— Sir Henry Fowler and Sir Alfred Hickman.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norman, Henry

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Bartley, George C. T.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Bull, William James

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Blake, Edward

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Burke, E. Haviland-

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Boland, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Boulnois, Edmund

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Baird, John George Alexander

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Charrington, Spencer

Banbury, Frederick George

Brassey, Albert

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brigg, John

Cogan, Denis J.

1308

1309

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoult, Joseph

O'Mara, James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cranborne, Viscount

Jeasel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

Crean, Eugene

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Percy, Earl

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Joicey, Sir James

Pickard, Benjamin

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pilkington, Richard

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Joyce, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cullinan, J.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Plummer, Walter R.

Delany, William

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kimber, Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Kinloch, Sir. John George Smyth

Price, Robert John

Donelan, Captain A.

Lambert, George

Priestley, Arthur

Doogan, P. C.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Purvis, Robert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Law, Andrew Bonar

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rankin, Sir James

Duffy, William J.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Duncan, James H.

Leighton, Stanley

Reckitt, Harold James

Edwards, Frank

Leveson-Gower, Prederick N. S.

Reddy, M.

Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Ellis, John Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Faber, George Denison

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Roche, John

Farrell, James Patrick

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Fenwick, Charles

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Russell, T. W.

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

Lundon W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Ffrench, Peter

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Field, William

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Smith, H C(Northmb. Tyneside

Fisher, William Hayes

Maconochie, A. W.

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

M'Govern, T.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Stevenson, Francis S.

Fletcher, Sir Henry

M'Killop, Jas, (Stirlingshire)

Stock, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

Malcolm, Ian

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Forster, Henry William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sullivan, Denial

Garfit, William

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H E (Wilton

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Tennant, Harold John

Gilhooly, James

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hasti'gs)

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

Milton, Viscount

Thornburn, Sir Walter

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Thornton, Percy M.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachini

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Tomlinson. Wm. Edw. Murray

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mooney, John J.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ySEdm'nds

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Tully, Jasper

Grenfell, William Henry

Morgan, Dav. J. (Walthamst'w

Valentia, Viscount

Gretton, John

Morrell, George Herbert

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Gunter, Colonel

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

Murnaghan, George

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Hammond, John

Murphy, J.

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Harris, FLeverton (Tynemouth

Nicholson, William Graham

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hay. Hon. Claude George

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

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Healy, Timothy Michael

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

Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Heath, James (Statfords. N.W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Herman-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Higginbottom, S. W.

O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

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

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Alexander Hargreaves Brown and Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

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

Hope, J. F. (Shef'ld, Brightside

O'Dowd, John

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Horner, Frederick William

O'Malley, William

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. (By ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
MR. JEFFREYS: I understand that the promoters are willing to introduce certain desirable Amendments, and under the circumstances I withdraw my objection to the Second Reading.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. (By ORDER.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*MR. BELL*MR. BELL (Derby) moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He was, he stated, very anxious to say a few words on behalf of a large number of men directly concerned in the measure, being in the employ of the railway company. One of the chief objections entertained to the Bill had reference to the scheme of the promoters as contained in Clause 27, in which the company seek power to contribute towards certain provident funds, etc. Clause 27 reads—
"If a society is or shall be hereafter constituted from amongst persons in the pay of the company for the purpose of providing by means of the subscriptions of the members, with the aid of donations or subscriptions from the company and others, for the relief or maintenance of members of such society during sickness not arising from injuries in respect of which such members are entitled to compensation from the company by statute or common law, or under the Great Eastern Accident Fund Scheme," etc.
From those words Members might assume that the company were actuated by some extraordinary feeling of philanthropy in putting forward this clause, and that they were simply moved by the interests of their employees. He proposed, however, to prove to the House that they were not actuated by either philanthropy or generosity. Their ob-
1312
ject was common to a great many rail, way companies in the present day. It was to attach their employees to them, and to deprive them of that to which they had a perfect right—namely, liberty of choice in regard to connection with provident institutions. There was in connection with the Great Eastern Company a provident society which had been in existence since 1851—
*MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that this Bill is an omnibus Bill, and that only this one clause (27) has reference to the provident society to which the hon. Member objects. If he has no substantial objection to the Bill as a whole, I would suggest to him that his better course would be to reserve his observations until the House comes to the proposal on the Paper, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out Clause 27." I do not say the hon. Member is out of order in moving the rejection of the Bill; but if his objection is only to that clause, that, I would suggest, would be the proper and usual place to move it.
*MR. BELLsaid he had another reason for opposing. There was in connection with the Great Eastern Railway Company a provident society, which has been in existence since 1851. It was a compulsory society, and men employed in certain grades in the company's service were required, as a condition of employment, to become members of that society. Up to 1888 there were in the society three scales of payment, and the men had to contribute 8d. per week. It was found in the year 1884 that the society was insolvent, and arrangements were made whereby the members paid an additional 1d. per week. So it went on until 1898, when, on an actuarial valuation being made, it was shown that up to the end of 1894 the society had been insolvent to the extent of over £34,000. An effort had been made by those having the management of the society—namely, certain employees who paid the money into the funds—to make certain alterations, but, as a matter of fact, the employees could not under any circumstances alter or amend the rules, or make new ones, without the sanction and approval of the directors, Not-

1313
withstanding that, in 1899 and 1900 it was decided that the contribution should again be raised 1d. per week, the subscription having been raised in 1888 to 9d. The men who paid that amount received in return no more benefit than was, in many instances, received by men belonging to other societies outside the company's for a much smaller payment. One of the chief grievances in connection with this society was that the chairman and directors of the railway company were aggrieved because members of their society, who were compelled by the conditions of their employment to contract out of the Workmen's Compensation Act by joining an insurance society, should receive when they were sick from accident a certain amount from the insurance society as well as a certain amount from the benefit society. The Chairman of the Great Eastern Company felt so much aggrieved that he had endeavoured to obtain a clause forbidding employees who had met with injuries from receiving benefit from the provident society as well as from the insurance society. That was clearly a gross injustice to the men. It is tyrannous and unjust to dictate to men belonging to a society when and under what circumstances they should draw benefits. That formed a serious objection to the proposal of the clause. On the 15th June, 1900, the chairman of the company, Lord Claud J. Hamilton, sent a circular to the committee of the railway fund, in which he said—
"The strongest proof of this is the fact that only since January last it has been necessary to withdraw £2,000 from the reserve funds, and further withdrawals will have to be made if the present benefits are to be continued."
That £2,000 was what the company pretended to pay. By some arrangement, in 1888, when they found that the society was insolvent, they came to terms with the committee of management and agreed that the company should contribute a subsidy of £2,500 a year towards the funds of the society. But that contribution had been in name only. They had not subscribed the sum annually, but it was there as a reserve fund, guaranteed by the company, to be drawn upon if necessary. From 1886 to 1900 something like £3,700 was all that been drawn from the reserve
1314
fund, and so long as the society had a penny in hand received from its members nothing came from the company. Lord Claud Hamilton went on to say in his circular—
"Almost the whole of the staff are members of the Company's Accident Fund, and any member of the Provident Society incapacitated by injury arising in the course of his duties in the company's service receives allowances from the Provident Society as well as from the Accident Fund. This does not appear to me to be reasonable, and in other respects it is open to objection. I suggest, therefore, that the members of the Provident Society should agree to renounce any allowances from the society whilst they are receiving an allowance from the Accident fund, except in cases where the Accident Fund allowance by effluxion of time has been reduced to half-pay, in which case the Provident Society should grant its half-pay allowance."
He concluded this circular by saying—
"As regards the future, it is proposed to start a new society on a different basis, on the establishment of which the existing society will discontinue to accept new members."
Apparently the directors and chairman of the Great Eastern Company considered it unreasonable that men who might have been injured by accident in the company's employ should receive payment from the provident society as well as from the accident fund, the full amount of which would not be more than £1 a week. The directors were not successful in getting the men to accept this alteration in the provident society, so now they were trying to start a new fund, letting the old one die a natural death. The company said that they had already subscribed £35,499 towards superanuation, pensions, and to supplementary accident and other benefit funds of the company. Much of that money which they said they had subscribed was simply entered on paper and not actually subscribed to the funds of the society. A large proportion of that money went to pay for accidents for which otherwise the men would have been entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The report of the Accident Fund established in July, 1898, in substitution for the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1896, stated that—
"During the year the total number of claims was 3,635, including twenty-seven in regard to accidents that terminated fatally, six that

1315
resulted in the loss of an eye, four in the loss of a leg, one in the loss of an arm, and one in the loss of sight."
He maintained that a very large proportion of the £35,499 which the chairman had referred to would have gone under the Compensation Act to pay the workmen in these 3,635 cases. These matters had been discussed from time to time by the men, and eventually they wrote to the chairman of the company on 3rd December a long letter, which contained the following words—
"The committee, delegates, and members generally regret that it was decided to start a new society rather than enrol future servants of the company in this society on an equitable footing, but such a step having been taken they have no option but to accommodate themselves to the altered circumstances, and seek to enable the Provident Society to fulfil its mission to each and every one of its members."
That proved that it was not at the request of the men that these powers were now being sought by the company. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the directors, and the chairman said—
"In drawing attention to the Provident Fund the directors asked leave to subscribe to that fund another £500 a year. The fund was established in 1851, and was contributed to and managed by the men themselves, and the membership was now about 9,000."
So far as the men were concerned they could make no alteration or amendment in the rules of their society without the sanction of the directors. The company s subsidy was not paid into the fund, and there was at the present time £40,000 to the credit of the reserve—money which was not paid over by the company, but was a guarantee to meet contingencies should the men's contributions not be sufficient to meet the liabilities of the fund. Rather than that the subsidy of the company should be drawn on, the members had paid an extra penny a week. He wished, further, to draw attention to the effect of the clause referring to superannuation or pensions. The original rule was as follows—
"31. That any free member, of not less than two years standing, who may by accident, infirmity, old age, loss of sight, or other cause be rendered incapable of earning his livelihood, shall be placed upon the pension list and entitled to receive a weekly pension as defined in the following table," etc.
1316
It seemed to be another sore point with the chairman of the Great Eastern Company and the directors that men should be thus entitled to a pension, the maximum of which, on the higher scale, was 6s. 10d. per week, and the chairman had insisted upon the rule being so amended that it should be left wholly to the discretion of the directors to say whether or not a man who should become entitled to superannuation or pension should receive it. The clause as amended was as follows—
"Rule 31. That any free resident member of not less than two years standing who has, on account of physical or mental incapacity, been discharged by the directors of the Great Eastern Company, or who has, on the like account, retired from the service of the company, with the approval of the said directors, shall be placed upon the pension list, and he entitled to receive a weekly pension, as defined in the following table," etc.
The objection to that was clear. The rule contained the words "with the approval of the directors." That meant that a man who might be in receipt of 25s. or 30s. a week, and who might have been in the service of the company for thirty-five or forty years, when he attained the ago of sixty-five years and thought to himself. "I have done enough railway work and I will take my 6s. 10d. a week pension and retire." could not put his desire into execution without the consent of the directors. It would be in their power to say, "You shall not retire; if your present occupation is too hard for you, we will find you another office at less wages, but you have five or six years work in you yet." The men knew this, and it was at the desire of men on all parts of the Great Eastern system that he was opposing the Second Reading of the Bill unless this clause was withdrawn. Some members might think it generous on the part of the railway company to subscribe to a fund for the benefit of their employees, but it was really a condition of service, that the men should join this, that, or the other fund. Nearly all the companies had two or three of these funds attached to them. One was voluntary and another was made compulsory, and in the compulsory one there was sometimes a clause which made it necessary to join the society which had not such a clause. This rule was evidently designed to assist in compelling men to

1317
contract out of the Workmen s Compensation Act by joining the Insurance Society.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me to be discussing generally what should be the nature of funds of this kind, and to be citing from the regulations of other societies. That is clearly not in order on this Bill.
*MR. BELL: I am quoting to show the objections to these compulsory societies. I think I have given sufficient facts to prove that these societies are objectionable to the men employed in the railway service. At the outest of my remarks I said that many people would consider at first sight that the railway companies were actuated by a spirit of philanthropy. But I find that no such spirit prompts them. If it were otherwise—if they were really philanthropic and kindly disposed towards their servants—I ask why should they forbid their employees to take part in political or civic duties? This company forbids its members taking part in civic duties.
*MR. SPEAKER: Is there a clause to that effect in this Bill?
*MR. BELL: No, Sir.
*MR. SPEAKER: Then it is a rule of the. House that a matter affecting railway companies generally cannot be dealt with in debate on a private Railway Bill unless there is a clause in the Bill dealing with that matter.
*MR. BELL: I am sorry that I am debarred from entering upon that question, but at any rate the subject to which I was going to refer is familiar to the whole of the Members of the House, and it is one that has caused a vast deal of indignation amongst railway men.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in continuing on the subject.
*MR. BELLsaid he was not going to discuss it. He asked the House to register their disapproval of the attempts of employers, where it was not desired by the men, in any way to attach them to societies, and make it a condition of their employment that they should become members thereof.
MR. MAEKHAMseconded the Amendment. As it had been ruled that any discussion on the proceedings of the Great Eastern Railway Company would be out of order, he would not be able to raise the question he wished to raise. He would ask the Speaker's special ruling on this question. The Great Eastern Railway Company was the only company in this country that had refused—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech and then ask if it is in older.
MR. MAEKHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Bell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. PENNsaid that Clause 2 was put in the Bill by the directors as a purely permissive clause, in order to enable the railway companies, if they thought fit, to subscribe towards the funds raised by their employees. He must say as a director of the company that he failed to agree with the hon. Member for Derby when he said that the company wished to make membership of the society a condition of employment. That would be a most arbitrary proceeding, and one with which he could not possibly associate himself. But in asking that they might have power to subscribe to the fund, they only took permissive power in the event of the society being started. The society, if started by the men, would be managed by the men, and the company desired to have power to help them. He could not agree with the hon. Member that there were a large number of open sores in connection with the matter, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Derby. The directors were anxious to help the men in every possible way to practise habits of thrift.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not think the hon. Member who had spoken as representing the Great Eastern Railway

1319
Company had met two material points raised by the hon. Member for Derby. Though the hon. Gentleman said it would be a voluntary fund, as a matter of fact the men had experience of other funds, and they knew that every man in the service would be practically forced to join.
MR. PENN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. There are 30,000 members of the staff who are eligible under the existing fund, and only 9,000 are in the fund.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the hon. Member if he would pledge himself on behalf of the railway company that they would put some words in the Bill which would make it perfectly clear that the question of joining or not would be left absolutely voluntary to every servant of the company? Unless the hon. Member gave that pledge he certainly would vote against the Bill as it stood. The hon. Member said that the society would be managed by the men, but that would be useless unless a pledge to this effect were given. The other question raised by the hon. Member for Derby was that the men would not be able to make any alteration whatever in the rules. It seemed to him that while the fund might be nominally managed by the men it would be entirely under the control of the directors of the company. On that point the hon. Member for Lewisham had given no satisfaction.
*MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the hon. Member for Lewisham, who spoke for the directors of the railway company, said the employees of the company would be free to join as many like societies as they pleased, even if the Bill became law, but he overlooked the very important factor in the situation that of the employees of the company there were thousands earning less than 20s. a week, and thus they were not in a position to contribute to more than one society. Those who had experience of the industrial world were aware that the man who did not join the society promoted by a company would stand very small chance of being promoted in his occupation. He respectfully submitted that the fact that the fund was
1320
to be invested as a part of the Great Eastern Railway Stock removed it outwith the control of the members of the society. It was therefore a purely nominal control which the members would exercise over the fund. The Bill provided that the railway company "may contribute half-yearly out of the revenue of the company such sum as they may from time to time determine towards the funds of the society." This was an attempt to pauperise the working class which should be deprecated most strongly. Let the Great Eastern Railway Company pay their workmen sufficient wages to enable them to pay their contributions to their trade society, and then they would be under no obligation to the company for yearly or half-yearly grants. His strongest objection to this form of society was that it tended to undermine the self-respect of the employees of the company. If this proposal became law and the society was formed it would result in making every employee of the Great Eastern Railway Company who joined it subservient to the will and the wishes of the company. There was no provision in the clause that members of the society on leaving their employment or being dismissed were entitled to be recouped for the payments they had made to the funds of the society. That was a very serious consideration. Unless men were obedient and submissive in every respect, not only to the directors themselves but to the officials under the directors, who were often a thousand times worse than the directors, they were liable to be dismissed, and to lose not only the benefits of the society but also the money they had paid into it. Ho trusted, therefore, as a matter of fair play that the House would not endorse Clause 27.
MR. BARTLEYsaid it seemed to him exceedingly strange that two Members representing the working classes should object to the scheme proposed. Here was a large company coming forward asking power to subscribe to the funds of a benevolent institution, and it was met by objection. Large corporations had been told that they ought to do more for their employees, and it did seem strange in this case that a gentleman on the Front Opposition

1321
Bench should get up to object to such a scheme. It ought to be the duty of every large corporation, and of small companies also, to subscribe to these funds.
*MR. FENWICKsaid they did not object at all to employers of labour encouraging their workpeople to be thrifty and prudent and to lay by for a rainy day, but they objected to such a scheme as was foreshadowed in this Bill, which might be made a condition of employment between workmen and their employers. Frequently such provisions as this were converted into machinery for coercing workmen to do things which of their free will they were not disposed to do. It was because of the coercive powers that such a provision gave to large employers that they objected to its being inserted in the Bill.
*COLONEL BOWLEShoped that the Bill would be allowed to pass the Second Beading, as the question could be so much more thoroughly discussed in Committee upstairs.
MR. FIELDsaid that working men wanted to do their own business, without the intervention of railway directors. There was an element of compulsion running right through the whole of this Bill, which was distasteful to working men who sought independence. They were entitled to form their own opinion, without being led by Committees upstairs.
MR. YOXALLsaid this matter bad been discussed upon a totally new principle. A clause like the one suggested had been inserted in a number of Bills last session, and a Departmental Committee had distinctly laid it down that Parliament might properly interfere by providing against a rule of this kind. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill maintained silence upon this point they would be bound to vote against the measure.
MR. NANNETTIsaid he rose to support the hon. Member for Derby in his opposition
1322
to the Bill. Men would be forced to enter the service of this company, and they would be compelled to become contributors to this fund. They claimed the right of a workman to contribute to any fund which he thought was best calculated to advance his own interest. They asked for a free hand for the men, so that in sickness or death, or in leaving one district for employment in another, they could go to their particular society for assistance from the funds. If they carried this objectionable clause to its logical conclusion, this advantage would be denied to the workmen. He entered his strong protest against the clause, which he believed was the thin edge of the wedge for the purpose of intimidating and coercing the workmen.
Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the hon. Member for Lewisham would shorten this discussion, and save the time of the House, if he would undertake that this clause should make it clear that no compulsion or pressure should be put upon the men to join these societies.
MR. PENNreplied that there was no compulsion, simply because the rule was not in existence.
MR. JOYCEcontended that in a matter of this kind everything should be done fairly and aboveboard. Workmen should be allowed to choose their own societies. These great companies should not be given the power to coerce their employees to join those societies, which were a source of terror to their employees, who were often tyrannised over by every little official. It was a monstrous thing to try and force such a clause through this House, and he hoped it would be eliminated.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was surprised that the Covernment had not given the House the benefit of their advice on this question. The hon. Member for Lewisham had replied to the appeal made to him by saying that the rules were not yet made. What they wanted to know was whether the company would engage, if the Bill passed and they were empowered to make rules, that it should be part of those rules that

1323
no sort of compulsion should be applied, and that this should be embodied in the Bill when it went into Committee. If an undertaking of this kind was not given, it was clear that they would be obliged to proceed to a division. If the Bill was lost it would be entirely the fault of those who were promoting it for not giving the undertaking which was asked for on this particular point.
MR. GRAYsaid his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham was in a very awkward position, because he was not personally responsible for the Bill, but was merely acting as a mouthpiece of the directors, I with whom it was impossible for him to consult. But there was an Instruction on the Paper with regard to the Bill, which would come before the House on Thursday, when a definite reply could be given. There were many other valuable clauses in this Bill, relating to level crossings and the building of bridges, which ought not to be delayed on account of this dispute. He sympathised with the view that this fund should be a voluntary one, but he thought it was a question which could be settled in the Committee upstairs.
MR. ASQUITH: I understand that the promoters of this Bill, or those representing them, do not feel that they have any authority to give the undertaking which is asked for. Therefore I suggest that in the general interest we should give them an opportunity of obtaining the undertaking we ask for, and for that purpose I now move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned; to upon Thursday.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Cowes Ferry Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to
1324
introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

3. "That, in the case of the Birmingham (City) Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. and 5 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the local and road authorities shall be proved before the Committee on the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

4. "That, in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Canada Dock Works, etc.) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the power to enable the promoting Board to purchase 500 acres of land for future dock development be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

5. "That, in the case of the Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Tramway No. 3 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

6. "That, in the case of the Harrogate Corporation Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clause 7 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

7. "That, in the case of the Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District (Water) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petition from Hurstmonceaux, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from Wolverhampton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Coventry; and Middlesbrough; to lie upon the Table.
  Two Petitions from Officers of the Indian Staff Corps, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Hastings, for extension In women; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT. 1890.
  Petition from Wolstanton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Leicester (two); London; North Shields; Bradford; Leicestershire; Wharfedale; Kennington (three); Durham; Shipley; Scoonie; Plymouth; Glasgow; Inverness; Sheffield (seven); Kingston-upon-Hull; Dundee; Worthing; Middlesbrough; Newport Pagnell; and Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Auchterarder (two); Biggar; Cruden; Lanark; Dumfries; Torryburn; Port Glasgow; and Galashiels; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MINES (COURRIERES COLLIERIES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by four of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines on the methods of preventing falls of roof adopted at Courrieres Collieries. Department of the Pas-de-Calais, France [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (LIEUTENANT GENERAL SIR H. E. COLVILE, K.C.M.G., C.B.).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relative to the recall of Lieutenant General Sir H. E. Colvile, K.C.M.G., C.B. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (YEOMANRY CAVALRY).
  Copy presented, of Training Return of Yeomanry Cavalry for 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (TRAINING OF JUNIOR NAVAL OFFICERS) (COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inquire into and report on the Training and Examination of Junior Naval Officers, with the Circular announcing the Changes to the Fleet [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CYPRUS.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report for 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN AVAR—PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL ROTHA.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the negotiations with General Louis Botha are concluded; and, if so, can he state the result.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have at present no information the hon. Gentleman. I will give it bun as soon as I can.

  BURNING OF TOWNS IN ORANGE RIVER COLONY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any reports have been received at the War Office of the burning of the towns of Bothaville and Ventersburg in the Orange River Colony, and of the villages of Wilpoort and Dullstroom in the Transvaal; and, if any reports have been received, whether they will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No despatch has reached the War Office on these points. I will ask Lord Kitchener for a report.

  FARM BURNING—CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LORD ROBERTS AND GENERAL BOTHA.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the correspondence between Lord Roberts and General Botha, in reference to farm burning, will be laid upon the Table of the House as promised.
  MR. BRODRICK: The correspondence will be laid as soon as possible.

  WELSH HOSPITAL IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction among the subscribers to the fund for the establishment and maintenance of the Welsh hospital for South Africa on account of its discontinuance or absorption with another hospital, although Lord Lansdowne had accepted the offer of the committee to provide for its maintenance for another three months; and whether he will state into what hospital the Welsh hospital was absorbed; and whether the order for its absorption was given in accordance with instructions from the Commander-in-Chief or some, and, if so, what, officer in South Africa.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether, upon the discontinuance of the Welsh hospital in South Africa and its absorption into a military hospital, the plant, medicines, and appurtenances of the hospital were taken possession of by the military authorities; whether any, and if any how many, members of the staff of the Welsh hospital were transferred to the military hospital by which it was absorbed; into what hospital was the Welsh hospital merged; and what were the military or administrative reasons which made the absorption of the Welsh hospital expedient after the acceptance by Lord Lansdowne of the offer of the Committee to maintain the hospital for another three months.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I will reply at the same time to the two questions. I am not aware that there exists the dissatisfaction complained of. The hon. secretary of the Welsh Hospital Commission recently called at the Army Medical Department and stated that the committee were perfectly satisfied with the action taken. The hospital has been absorbed into No. 2 General Hospital, by order of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, By the terms of the agreement between the committee and the War Office, the hospital equipment is to be handed over to the latter on the former ceasing to maintain the hospital. I am making inquiry from South Africa as to the remaining points raised by the hon. Member for Swansea District.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Is the noble Lord aware that the secretary he refers to is the secretary of the executive committee, and not of the general committee who were instrumental in raising this large fund?
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of that.
  MR. G. T. KENYON: Is it not the fact that a considerable amount of the money originally subscribed is still unexpended? What steps are being taken in regard to it?
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot go into details. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.

  SOUTH AFRICAN MEAT CONTRACTS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a contract, dated the 27th October, 1890, was entered into with the South African Cold Storage Company for the supply of fresh meat to the troops in the field at 11d. per pound, the terms implying that it was a live cattle contract, but notwithstanding this, three-fourths of the three million pounds of meat supplied; under the contract up to the 1st February, 1900, was refrigerated; whether

  1329
  the contract was renewed in January, 1900, on the same terms subject to a reduction of 2d. per pound on all frozen meat accepted; whether the company has now agreed to refund to the War Department 2d. per pound on all frozen meat paid for at 11d. per pound since the war broke out; what is the date of that agreement; what is the amount of the sum to be refunded; and has the arrangement been carried out; and whether the War Office regards the refund of 2d. per pound as adequate having regard to the fact that very shortly after the 27th October, 1899, the date of the earlier contract, the Cape Government suspended the collection of customs duties upon the importation of fresh and frozen mutton and beef, and that these duties (2d. per pound on mutton and 1d. per pound on beef) would have been recoverable by the War Department from the colony had they remained in force, their suspension being pro tanto a loss to Imperial funds and a further gain to the contractors.
  LORD STANLEY: The answer to the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the third paragraph, the company has agreed to make the refund in question, the agreement being dated 22nd September, 1900. The General Officer Commanding received instructions in December last to make the necessary deduction, but the exact amount of it has not been reported. As regards the fourth paragraph, the suspension of customs duty referred to involved neither gain nor loss to the contractors, as no duty was ever charged by the Colonial Government on meat imported for the use of the troops. The reduction in price is therefore a real reduction of charge.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: May I ask whether the Controller and Auditor General was wrong in saying that the reduction in the duty made no change in the circumstances of the terms of the contract?
  LORD STANLEY: I think the last was wrong. No duty was imposed by the Colonial Government on meat imported for the troops.
  MR. FIELD: Has the company refunded the money as agreed?
  LORD STANLEY: I have said that the General Officer Commanding received instructions in December last to make the necessary reduction.

  PENSIONS FOR DISABLED SOLDIERS.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the general interest attaching to the subject, he can now give further information concerning the scale of pensions to be awarded to non-commissioned officers and men who have been rendered wholly or partly incapable of earning a livelihood by reason of disease contracted while serving in South Africa; and whether any communication on the subject has yet been made to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.
  LORD STANLEY: The scale contemplated in my former reply is that applicable to men incapacitated by wounds, and a communication has been made to the Chelsea Commissioners to this effect.

  VOLUNTEER INFANTRY BRIGADE CAMPS.
  COLONEL LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the conditions under which Volunteer infantry brigade camps are to be held this year.
  MR. JAMES KENYON: At the same time may I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he proposes to have this year camps of exercise or training for Volunteers; and, if so, for bow many days; and will opportunities be given to them to fire their musketry course whilst in camp in the same manner as given last year; and will Volunteer officers who attend camps of exercise or training be paid according to the Army rate—namely, the same scale as paid to Militia and Yeomanry officers.
  LORD STANLEY: An Army Order will shortly be issued giving the necessary information.

  RE-ARMAMENT OF THE VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
  MR. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secre-

  1331
  tary of State for War if he can state what progress is being made towards the re-armament of the Volunteer Artillery with weapons of modern ordnance, and, having regard to the statement made by the late Under Secretary for War in the last Parliament as to the probable re-armament of that force with semimobile guns, whether steps will be taken to ensure the provision of such guns to the Volunteer Field and Position Artillery as will not impair in any way their mobility in the field.
  LORD STANLEY: As my right hon. friend has informed the House, the 4·7 guns for the Volunteers are in course of manufacture, and will, I hope, be delivered before very long. Every consideration is being given to this question, as was explained on Friday last.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the noble Lord be kind enough to say where the guns are being manufactured—not in Germany, I hope?
  LORD STANLEY: In various parts of England.

  RESERVE REGIMKNTS—DISBANDMENT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to state approximately the dates upon which it is proposed to disband the different reserve regiments of cavalry and infantry.
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot give exact dates. The regiments will disband at the conclusion of a year s service, or earlier in cases in which a Ceneral Officer Commanding recommends it.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the officers be disbanded at the same time as the men?
  LORD STANLEY: In a great many cases they will, but not in all cases.

  ENLISTMENT AGE RULES.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the experiment which was made to ascertain the approximate true
  1332
  age of proposed recruits for enlistment recognition was given to the necessity of making the production of reliable testimony as to age dependent upon acceptance of the recruit; whether, in view of the importance of the question, he will consider the advisability of carrying it out as far as is found possible, and stating on the recruit's attestation paper the proof by which his age was arrived at, so that at least the percentage of men whose correct age is known should be ascertained, and that a safeguard should be given against the despatch of soldiers to India and abroad under the age prescribed by the regulations; can he state how it is intended to determine the correct time at which the proposed pensions are to become due; and whether steps could be taken for arriving at the correct age of the large majority of recruits, seeing that the correct ages of children are ascertained in schools and under the Factory Act.
  LORD STANLEY: The acceptance of a recruit is not dependent on the production of a birth certificate, nor could it be made so. It would be quite impracticable to keep recruits waiting while inquiries wore being made for the certificates. In the experiment referred to it was impossible to obtain the certificates in the case of forty-five per cent. of the eases taken, and of the rest fifteen per cent, were very doubtful. The medical officer states what he considers, after careful examination, to be the apparent age on the attestation. The age given by the recruit on oath is held to be his true age for reckoning Army service, and the qualifying period for the age pensions will depend on this.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—RATIONS, ETC.—PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the amount paid to contractors for native meat and home grown produce supplied to the troops and horses stationed in Ireland, and whether he can give the amount paid to contractors for foreign meat and imported forage supplies; and whether he can state the amount paid for fittings for men and horses of goods manufactured in Ireland, and, approximately, the total amount so

  1333
  claimed as a set-off to the over-taxation of Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: As I have previously explained to the House, it is not possible to obtain figures of the kind referred to without great difficulty, and I am not at present prepared to inflict the labour entailed upon the officers concerned, who are already overworked.
  Captain DONELAN: Can the noble Lord give us the proportion of foreign to home grown meat at present supplied to the troops in Ireland?
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot.
  MR. FIELD: Will the noble Lord inquire?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether prime oxen were purchased in Dublin market for the use of Boer prisoners at St. Helena, while at the same time the troops stationed in Ireland were mainly fed on imported foreign meat; and whether, seeing that native meat could have been purchased from contractors at the fractional difference of a few pence in each hundred pounds weight, and that the tendered price for the supply of native Irish meat was about half the price paid for frozen meat in South Africa, he can explain why native meat was not purchased for the troops in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: Cattle were purchased in Dublin for the troops and also for the Boer prisoners at St. Helena. In reply to the second paragraph, I can only say that native meat is largely purchased for the troops in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: Where is it purchased?
  LORD STANLEY: In various parts of Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: Can the noble Lord specify the places?
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot.

  WINCHESTER SCHOOL RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an offer was made to the War Office by a private individual in July, 1897, to provide the School and City of Winchester with a suitable rifle range free of all cost, and that the War Office thought so well of the scheme that they expressed their desire to take it over themselves; and whether he can explain why, after a delay of three and a half years, an intimation has been sent from the War Office that nothing is intended to be done, with the result that rifle shooting in the neighbourhood has been killed, and persons elsewhere discouraged from making similar offers in their respective localities.
  LORD STANLEY: The head master of Winchester School made a suggestion in 1897 that be should erect a range without any expense to the public, but subsequently, in the course of negotiation, proposed to contribute handsomely to a range to be laid out by the War Department. The estimated cost was found to be £20,000 for 500 acres; Dr. Fearon's proposed contribution was found to be £500. The War Department, none the less, endeavoured to carry through the matter, but found—after long negotiation—that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners required £15,500 for 170 acres. As the range would have cost double the sum estimated, and other ranges had been provided for the troops in the neighbourhood, the Secretary of State did not feel justified in pursuing the matter further at so great a cost for the use of the school.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How many Irish schools are provided with rifle ranges?
  [No answer was returned.]

  NEW BATTLESHIPS—LAUNCHING WEIGHTS, &c.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what were the respective launching weights of the battleships "Ocean," "Implacable." "Bulwark," and "Montagu,"

  1335
  and the period intervening in each case between the laying down and the launching.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The launching weights of the ships named and the periods intervening in each case between the laying down and the launching are as follows:—

  Launching weight

  Period intervening between the laying down and the launching.

  Tons.

  Months.

  Days.

  "Ocean"

  7,266

  16

  22

  "Implacable"

  6,000

  8

  —

  "Bulwark"

  5,930

  7

  —

  "Montagu"

  5,560

  15

  11

  CHINA—STRENGTH OF BRITISH AND OTHER NAVIES IN CHINESE WATERS.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will inform the House as to the number and description of the ships representing Great Britain in Chinese waters and on the Yang-tsze River; and also as to the number and description of the ships representing each of the other European Powers and the United States.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Naval forces of the Powers named now in Chinese waters appear from the last published Returns to be as follows:—Great Britain: 4 battleships. 15 cruisers, 23 small vessels (of which 2 cruisers and 4 small vessels are on the Yang-tsze River); France: 1 battleship, 9 cruisers, 22 small vessels (of which 3 small vessels are on the Yang-tsze); Russia: 5 battleships, R cruisers, 30 small vessels and torpedo boats; Germany: 4 battleships, 10 cruisers, 10 small vessels (of which 2 cruisers and 2 small vessels are on the Yang-tsze); Italy: 6 cruisers; Austria: 4 cruisers (of which one is on the Yrang-tsze); Portugal: 1 cruiser, 2 small vessels; United States: 1 battleship, 2 coast defence ships, 8 cruisers, 2 small vessels.

  NORTH CHINA EXPEDITION—CLOTHING OF INDIAN TROOPS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to
  1336
  ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any official information showing that the Indian troops and camp followers serving in North China were not provided with such suitable warm clothing as would enable them to resist the intense cold of that region, and that consequently they suffered great hardships; and will he state how many casualties and deaths from sickness have occurred among them up to the date of the last official reports received here or in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have not seen the reports referred to. An ample supply of warm clothing was provided for troops and followers, and we have no reason to suppose that there has been any sickness or suffering from any deficiencies in this respect. The percentage of sick troops in hospital from all causes on the 1st January was only 3½. The deaths have not been reported.

  TRADE IN AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the total trade (exports and imports) of each of the following protectorates, namely, Uganda, East Africa, Central Africa, and Somaliland, since their creation up to 31st December, 1900; and whether he can state approximately the figures of the trade in each case from and to Great Britain and Ireland.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The statistics available are to be found in the "Statistical Abstract for the Colonies and other Possessions of the United Kingdom." presented to Parliament in 1899 and 1900. As regards Uganda, figures are not available for the years after 1896, owing to the protracted disturbances in that protectorate. The trade, however, has been comparatively small, and, such as it is, it may be considered to be practically included in the figures representing the imports and exports of the East Africa Protectorate, through which they must have passed.

  1337
  Even with regard to the remaining protectorates, in consequence of the recent character of their creations there has been a want of uniformity in the method of computing the statistics, both as between the several protectorates and in respect of the basis of computation in any one protectorate. Omitting Uganda, for the reasons stated, the totals of exports and imports are:—For East Africa, from 1895 to 31st March, 1900, excluding "administration" imports and imports of material for railway construction and of provision for those engaged thereon, the figures are: Imports, R.24,711,876; exports, R.6,200,215; total, R.30,972,091 (£1,970,091). For British Central Africa, from 1895 to 31st March, 1900, including "administration" imports, the figures are: Imports, £580,001; exports, £187,718; total, £777,779. For Somaliland, from 1892 to 31st March, 1900, the figures are: Imports, R.42,160,470; exports, R,42,501,390; total, R.84,661,860 (£5,157,559). The proportion of British trade to total trade can only be given to a very limited degree. As regards the East Africa Protectorate, the imports from the United Kingdom are approximately from 25 to 30 per cent. of the total. The exports to the United Kingdom were about 25 per cent. of the total in 1896–7. Later information is not available. As regards British Central Africa, nothing can be stated as to the proportion of the exports going to the United Kingdom. Of the imports, between 80 and 90 per cent. came from the United Kingdom in 1899–1900. In regard to Somaliland, no particulars can be given of the share of the United Kingdom in the total trade.
  MR. LOUGH: Will Papers giving further information be presented before the Supplementary Estimates are taken?
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Member forgets that at the beginning of my answer I said that this information was given in Papers presented to Parliament in 1899–1900.
  MR. LOUGH: But will the figures be brought up to date before the Supplementary Vote is taken?
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I cannot promise.

  NICARAGUA CANAL—HAY-PAUNCKEOTE TREATY.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, without detriment to the public interest, he can inform the House what is the existing position of the negotiations relative to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty for the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and whether it is intended that the Treaty shall be modified in the sense proposed by the United States Senate, namely, that in the event of a canal being constructed it shall be fortified by and shall be under the control of the United States in the event of war; whether negotiations are proceeding with other Powers in regard to this question; and when he proposes to place copies of the Correspondence relating to the matter upon the Table of the House.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The modifications in the Hay-Pauncefote Convention proposed by the United States Senate have not been accepted by His Majesty's Government. A communication to this effect was made yesterday by Lord Pauncefote to Mr. Hay. His Majesty's Government are not engaged in negotiations with any other Power in regard to this question. I will ask the hon. Member to postpone his question with regard to presentation of Papers for a few days.

  ASHANTI EXPENDITURE—THE GOLDEN STOOL.
  *MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before the Supplementary Estimate for expenditure incurred in respect of the recent disturbances in Asbanti is brought forward, be will distribute to Members Papers dealing with the events which led up to those disturbances; and whether be will now state what were the instructions given to Sir F. Hodgson as to obtaining possession of the Golden Stool and the collection of a war indemnity.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Papers have been presented, and I am informed that they will be distributed on Tuesday. No instructions were given to Sir F. Hodgson

  1339
  as to the Golden Stool, but he was authorised, on the advice of himself and the Resident at Coomassie, to take steps to raise a revenue of £12,000 a year. The Resident recommended that this should not be called a tribute, or tax, but should be levied as interest on the unpaid war indemnities, which he believed the Ashantis would consider a perfectly just and legitimate debt.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Can my right hon. friend say whether any estimate has been placed upon the value of the Golden Stool?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Golden Stool has a "moral and intellectual value."
  *MR. C. P. SCOTT: Is not the Golden Stool regarded as the symbol of possession?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Precisely; that is the "moral and intellectual value."
  MR. LOUGH: Did Sir James Willcocks make any settlement on this point?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; that was left to the present Resident.
  MR. LOUGH: Shall we see the Papers before the Supplementary Estimates are taken?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is any chance of getting them before Friday.

  INDIAN CABLE RATES.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government receives the same rate for the transit across India of messages between the Governments of the Australasian Colonies and the United Kingdom as is received for commercial telegrams; and, if not, what transit rate is paid by each of the various Governments concerned, and for what period in each case such rate has been in use; will he state the total number of words which, for each year from 1891–2 till the present time, has been exchanged between India and the United Kingdom as Stale or Govern-
  1340
  ment messages; whether, for each of the years in question, the Governments of India and the United Kingdom have paid for Government telegrams the same rate as currently charged for commercial telegrams; and, if not, will he state during what period and to what extent such rate for Government telegrams between India and the United Kingdom has been varied; and, if it is convenient to furnish the number of words in these Government telegrams, will he give the sum annually paid since 1801–2 by the Indian Government for such telegrams sent and received between India and the United Kingdom.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The transit rate across India for messages of the Governments of the Australasian Colonies and the United Kingdom is the same as that received for commercial telegrams. The second and fourth questions will have to be referred to India for an answer. State messages from India include messages to the War Office, Admiralty, etc., and we have no information in this Office regarding these. The answer to the third question is "Yes." Government messages between India and the United Kingdom are paid for at the same rate as commercial messages.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the impossibility of gathering complete information on the subject from some of the annual reports published by the Indian Government Telegraph Department, he will give separately the number of words constituting the telegrams which for each year have passed over the Indian land lines from Bombay to Madras and vice rersa as transit messages under the headings of private, State, and press, since the Indian Government became a partner with the Eastern Telegraph Company, the Eastern Extension, etc., Telegraph Company, and the Indo-European Telegraph Company, in the fund which, being known as the Australian Message Fund, was formed in 1891–2 in connection with the reduction of telegraph rates between the United Kingdom and Australia; and will he give separately under the above headings the total sum for each year since India became partner to this Australian Message

  1341
  Fund, which has been received by India as transit rate; and also the total sum for each year which would have been paid to India for the number of words which have actually been carried in transit, at the rate which prevailed before the reduction in 1891–2 of the Indian transit rate, made in favour of telegrams to and from Australia and the Far East.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: As I understand the question, it means a wish to know the number of words, divided into private, State, and press, which have transited India between Bombay and Madras, and have been exchanged with Australia on the one side and the west of India on the other. Also the revenue derived from such messages under the present Indian transit rate, and the revenue which would have been derived from the same number of words under the Indian transit rate in force previous to the Australasian Message Fund Agreement. I am afraid I cannot give this information, though I could give the revenue or charge without much difficulty. If my hon. friend will communicate with me I will see what I can do to enable him to get the information he desires.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he would say whether in all cases, as is the case at present in communicating with India, the full commercial rate is charged for Government telegrams exchanged with the United Kingdom; and, if not, in the case of which telegraph companies and to which countries a rate less than the full rate is charged for Government telegrams; and can he state the number of words or the total value of telegrams which, annually passing as Government telegrams, have been sent and received between the United Kingdom and India since the year 1891–2.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir. Reduced rates are charged to South Africa and certain places in East Africa and West Africa by the Eastern Telegraph Company and its associated com-
  1342
  panies; to Australasia and certain places in Asia beyond India by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company; to North America by the North Atlantic Cable Companies; to the West Indies by the North Atlantic Cable Companies and the West India Telegraph Direct Company; to South America, so far as the Eastern and its associated telegraph companies and the North Atlantic Cable Companies are concerned, and to Cyprus, by the Eastern Telegraph Company. The Postmaster General is not in a position to state the number of words or the value of Government telegrams between the United Kingdom and India, seeing that many of the telegrams do not pass through the hands of his officials, but are dealt with direct by the companies.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Can the hon. Gentleman say where I can get the information?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know, except by applying to the companies.

  LAW OFFICERS' SALARIES.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the burdens placed on the nation by the prolongation of the war in South Africa, he proposes to make any reduction in the sums that are paid, partly for fees and partly for salary, to the Attorney and Solicitor General.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No, Sir, I do not contemplate making any such proposal.

  PORT SANITARY AUTHORITIESCOST OF MAINTENANCE.
  COLONEL SADLER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the ever increasing expense of maintaining the various port sanitary authorities of the country, which now falls solely on the seaport local authorities, and having regard to the fact that inland towns and districts are also interested in the prevention of the importation

  1343
  of infectious diseases into the country, he will recommend that all or part of the expenditure thus incurred should become a national charge.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this question. This matter has been carefully considered on more than one occasion in recent years. His Majesty's Government see no sufficient reason for altering the decision that has been arrived at by previous Governments, or for relieving the outports from the duty that has always been incumbent on them of preventing, at an expense by no means large, the introduction of infectious diseases into the country.

  COINAGE—HALF-CROWNS AND FLORINS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the confusion arising from the similarity of the florin and half-crown pieces, he will take the opportunity of the proposed issue of new coins to withdraw the latter from circulation.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not proposed to discontinue the coinage of half-crowns, and I do not think such a course would meet with general approval. Consideration, however, will be given to the point whether the designs of the two coins can be made more distinct.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE IN THE WHAEFEDALE UNION, YORKSHIRE.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of cases of infectious diseases in the Wharfedale Union in Yorkshire which have been reported in the last five years.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, E.): The Returns for 1900 for this Union are not at present complete, but in respect of the five years ending on 31st December, 1899, the total number of cases was 1,181.

  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899.
  MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Govern-
  1344
  ment Board whether he can state how many local authorities in the United Kingdom have put in operation the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899; how many local authorities in the County of London have done so; what has been the number of applications in the United Kingdom generally since the passing of the Act; what the number in the County of London for the same period; and how many of these applications respectively have been granted.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction under the Act in Scotland or Ireland. As regards England and Wales, I am afraid I cannot give the particulars desired. As was intimated recently in reply to a question by my hon. friend the Member for North Islington, Disinformation is limited to cases of applications by local authorities to the Board for sanction when loans are required for the purposes of the Act. I may add that in London such loans are not sanctioned by the Local Government Board, but by the London County Council.
  MR. HORNER: Will my right hon. friend say where I can get the information?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I only have information of the cases in which application is made to the Local Government Board. Where the local authorities do not apply to the Board, I have no information.
  MR. MACNAMARA: Is it a fact that in January last the Local Government Board had applications from Fulham and Hampstead to put the Act in force, and sent a reply?
  MR. WALTER LONG: As I believe the reply was sent to the hon. Member, he himself knows best.

  MAGISTRATES AND THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether on the demise of the Crown magistrates already on the Commission of the Peace are obliged to take the oath of allegiance

  1345
  to the new Sovereign, or whether it is merely optional on their part.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am advised that magistrates who are duly qualified may, notwithstanding the demise of the Crown, lawfully proceed in the execution of their duties without taking any fresh oath; but that it is proper and desirable that they should embrace an early opportunity of taking anew the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath.

  DRAYCOTT (DERBYSHIRE) CEMETERY.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, notwithstanding that the Burial Act of 1900 came into operation on the 1st of January last, the Parish Council of Draycott, Derbyshire, have been required to divide their cemetery, opened since the 1st of January, into consecrated and unconsecrated parts, in accordance with a plan sanctioned by the late Home Secretary prior to the passing of the said Act; and whether, seeing that this deprives the burial authority of the discretionary power in regard to consecration given by that Act, and subjects them to an enactment which has been now repealed, he will take steps for the withdrawal of this requirement.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The division of the burial ground in question into consecrated and unconsecrated parts was approved by my predecessor in accordance with an application made by the parish council before the Burial Act of last year was passed. I am advised that the obligation of the burial authority to proceed to the consecration of the part so approved is not affected by the passing of the Act. I may add that even under the new law the question of the consecration of burial grounds is not left entirely to the discretion of the burial authority.
  In reply to a further question by Sir WALTER FOSTER, Mr. RITCHIE said he was of opinion that burial grounds approved prior to the passing of the Act must be dealt with in accordance with the old Act.

  REPORT OF PATENT LAW COMMITTEE.
  MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say when the Report of the Committee on Patent Law will be published.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Report of the Committee was presented yesterday, and will, I hope, be in the hands of Members very shortly.

  ALLNIOHT SITTINGS.—TEMPERATURE OF HOUSE.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he could undertake that on any future occasion when circumstances may require that Members of this House should be kept up all night the normal temperature of the House should be kept up also.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I can assure my hon. friend that every care shall be taken to keep up the normal temperature of the House throughout the night, if, unfortunately, we should again have to undergo the experience of an all-night sitting. The records taken, which I shall be pleased to let my hon. friend see, show that the temperature was very evenly maintained throughout the early hours of Friday last.

  DUCHY OF CORNWALL—COAL ROYALTIES IN SOMERSETSHIRK.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount received from royalty by the Duchy of Cornwall upon coal worked in the parish of Farrington Gurney, Somerset, and also the amount received from royalty upon coal worked in the parish of Clandown, Midsomer Norton, Somerset.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for, as the boundaries of the collieries which work coal belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall do not coincide with the parish boundaries, and coal of

  1347
  other owners is raised through the same shafts, the royalties upon such coal not being known to the Duchy officers. The total amount of royalties received by the Duchy is given in the accounts annually presented to Parliament.

  STOLEN POSTAGE STAMPS.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that new postage stamps will now have to be issued, the Postmaster General Can see his way to perforating or otherwise marking in a distinctive manner penny stamps which may be used in filling up the shilling Savings Bank forms, so that the fraudulent use of the ordinary penny stamp may as far as possible be avoided.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has no evidence of any extensive use of Savings Bank stamp deposit forms for the disposal of stolen postage stamps; and to provide that none but special stamps should be used on such forms would detract from the simplicity and consequent usefulness of the arrangement. No perforated stamp is accepted as a part of a deposit; and any firm can thus remove temptation to dishonesty of the kind indicated by having its ordinary penny stamps perforated.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES—BINDING OF FREE COPIES.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the binding of the volumes of Hansard's Debates supplied to Members may be improved, and whether a cloth binding similar to that used for the public general statutes, which are also supplied gratuitously, may be employed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, this shall be done if I receive from my hon. friend any evidence to show that the change is generally desired by Members.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can
  1348
  state how many senior assistant clerks (abstracter class) have been promoted to the second division under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; sixty-eight.

  ROYAL PARKS, KEW GARDENS, ETC.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would consent to a Return showing the acreage of the Royal Parks in Great Britain and Ireland, and their annual cost for the last ten years, with details of expenditure showing the weekly wages of workmen engaged respectively on roads, on paths, in gardening, the road and path mileage and cost per yard, the cost of gravel, sand, and stone, the number of lamps per mile and cost, the salaries of park-keepers, gatemen, rangers, and officials in each grade, and any other heads of expenditure.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would give a Return showing for Kew Gardens, London, and Botanic Gardens, Dublin, the respective acreage; the area under glass; the annual cost for ten years of trees, shrubs, flowers, and seeds; the number of workmen and their wages; the number of scientific men employed and their salaries and emoluments; the date of the respective foundations; and the total cost of both to the State.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be happy to give a Return showing the acreage of the Royal Parks in Great Britain and Ireland, of Kew Gardens, and of the Botanic Gardens, Dublin, and the total expenditure on each during the last ten years. I am unable to ascertain the total cost of each to the State since their foundation. On 21st March, 1899, my predecessor gave to the hon. Member the information which he desires as to the road mileage and cost per yard,† and details of the expenditure on wages and salaries will be found in the Estimates.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the hon. Gentleman include in the Return the details I ask for, so that all can understand them?
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxviii., page 1558.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I see no objection to giving some of them, but to include those not already available would involve a great deal of trouble and labour without compensating advantages.

  POSTAL SERVICE—AGE LIMIT FOR COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it would be possible to allow those who entered the postal service under the old regulations to compete up to the five years limit, seeing that it has been impossible for a majority of those affected by the alteration to make any improvement since the intended change was notified.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, this has been arranged.

  SCOTTISH MUSSEL FISHERIES.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and Board of Trade are preventing the mussel fishermen of Port Glasgow, Greenock, Dumbarton, and Cardross from having the free use of the banks and mussel beds; whether the Fisheries Board have leased the mussel beds opposite Port Glasgow to an ex-official member of their own Board at a nominal rent of 20s. on a thirty-one years lease; and whether he will hold a public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with this transaction.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Fishery Board that the reason for the action stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question was the long-continued complaint of the line fishermen of Scotland of the growing scarcity of mussels for bait on account of the reckless depletion of the Clyde mussel beds, which are supported by the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of 1889. Under Section 12 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, the Fishery Board leased the mussel beds in question from the Crown at an annual charge of £1, and publicly advertised for a sub-tenant
  1350
  on terms that were the same to all. The lessee was never an official of the Fishery Board and was not in their employment at the time of entering on the lease, though, as an expert, he had been employed by them formerly. He was selected entirely on his merits, being one of the best authorities on the subject in Scotland. The terms of the lease were adjusted after consultation by the Fishery Board with the town councils of Greenock and Port Glasgow. The Secretary for Scotland sees no cause for any inquiry.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD STAFF.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board for Ireland have increased their start of auditors, inspectors, and clerks since the Local Government Act (Ireland) came into operation; and, if so, can he say how many of each have been appointed, and at what salaries.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There has been an increase in the staff of the Local Government Board since the passing of the Act of 1898. Details of the increase under the heads mentioned in the question, with the salaries of the officers, will be found on a comparison of the Estimates of the Department for 1901 (Class II., page 201) with the Estimates for the current and past two years.

  SMALL HOUSES ACQUISITION ACT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would be willing to introduce an Amendment to the Small Houses Acquisition Act, Clause 2, subsection (c), that the title to the ownership is one which an ordinary mortgagee would be willing to accept, and insert the word "purchaser" instead of "mortgagee," and also modify Registration Clause 7 by removing the personal liability of the registrar, and the limit of time reduced to twelve years as under the Conveyancing Act.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I have already informed the hon. Member that this Act, which became law in August. 1899, has been in operation in Ireland for so limited a time as to offer insufficient grounds for considering the question of further legislation. When the Government are in a position to form an opinion as to how far it would be desirable or possible, by legislation, to modify the machinery of the Act, the suggestions of the hon. Member will be considered.

  ROXBORO ROAD SCHOOLS, LIMERICK.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state to what uses are the premises of the Roxboro Road Schools, Limerick, and the lands that constitute that endowment, now applied.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The Roxboro Road Schools have been let to Dean Gregg, at a rent of £20 a year, which, with the dividends on the funded portion of the endowment, is being accumulated in the hands of the Commissioners of Education.

  COUNTY DOWN CONSTABULARY.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many constables off the seniority list in County Down have been advanced to the rank of acting sergeant since 1st January, 1900, and how many of them are Roman Catholics; and whether he can state what proportion the Roman Catholic constables in the county bear to non-Catholics.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Seven constables serving in Down have been promoted to the rank of acting sergeant since the 1st January, 1,900; one of them is a Roman Catholic. There is no seniority list. There are 117 Roman Catholic constables in the county at present, and 91 of other religious denominations.

  NURSES IN IRISH WORKHOUSES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why
  1352
  the Local Government Board are insisting on the appointment of trained nurses for the position of assistant nurses in workhouse hospitals, and refusing to allow boards of guardians to appoint girls to these positions who could be trained (at a great saving to the rates) under the eyes of the medical officer and nurse in charge; and whether he will order this order of the Local Government Board to be withdrawn.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: In the interests of the sick poor it is necessary that the assistant nurse of a small workhouse hospital should be an experienced, qualified nurse, as she has entire charge of the sick during the temporary absence of the nurse from any cause, besides having probably to take charge of patients at night in many cases. The opinion of the Local Government Board is that no person should, be appointed and paid for discharging the duties of a nurse unless she has been sufficiently trained. The Board does not ask that an assistant nurse should be fully trained within the meaning of Section 58 (2) (a) (ii.) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and the Board has always been glad to encourage boards of guardians to train nurses whenever a systematic course of training has been proposed under sufficient and competent teachers. This has been done in some unions. The Board is, however, unable to approve of proposals that inexperienced untrained girls should be permitted to attempt to discharge nursing duties, and to acquire the status of a nurse without any sufficient or systematic instruction.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: If the boards consent to send these girls to be properly trained, will the Local Government Board be prepared to make them a grant-in-aid in the same way as is done in the case of fully-trained nurses?
  Mr. WYNDHAM: That is a proper subject for inquiry, and I will look into it.

  LONGFORD CROWN SOLICITOR.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to state what is the salary of the Crown Solicitor of Longford county;

  1353
  what amount lie receives for the office of local registrar of titles; can he state how many appearances this Crown Solicitor makes in. court in the exercise of the duties of his office; how many consultations he has to attend; whether he prepares any reports or gives advices to the constabulary; and how long has he been now appointed to this office.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The salary of the Crown Solicitor for Longford is £275 a year; as local registrar of titles he is paid a salary of £300 a year. The Crown j Solicitor conducts all Crown business at assizes or quarter sessions, and also at petty sessions when so directed. He prepares reports when such are necessary in the discharge of his duties, and likewise advises the constabulary. The present holder of the office was appointed to the united offices of Crown and Sessional Crown Solicitor in 1889; he was originally appointed to the latter office in 1863.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of appearances which this gentleman made last year in return for his salary?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; but I gather that his duties are very multifarious in their nature.

  IRISH EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS' STORES.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have been received from the Dublin branch of the Bookbinders' and Machine Rulers' Society as to the quantity of Readers and other school books which have been imported into the Education Commissioners' stores in Marlborough Street, and of the hardship inflicted on Dublin bookbinders by this action; and whether he will give a Return showing the number of such books sent to these stores, with the names of the publishers supplying same and the places where the work is executed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Complaints of the character mentioned were recently made to the Commissioners of National Educa-
  1354
  tion by the society in question. The Commissioners, upon communicating with the firm by which the books are supplied, were assured that they were printed and bound in Dublin. In view of this assurance. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by granting the Return indicated, but if the hon. Member has any further representations to make in the matter, and will communicate them to me. I shall be happy to cause further inquiry to be made.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS—BUILDING ESTIMATES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is proposed to reconsider the Estimate for building national schools in Ireland under Plan No. IV. A of the Board of Works; and whether, in the case of managers whose claims for extras have been recommended by the Education Board inside the last two years for an increased grant, such claims will be considered in any increase in amounts proposed to be given.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The revision referred to in the first paragraph is now in progress, and will be proceeded with as rapidly as the pressure of other work allows. It will not be possible to make the decision retrospective so as to apply it to cases already dealt with.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the result of the revision will be made known?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot; but there will be no unnecessary delay. The staff which has to do the work has, however, other pressing duties which must not be neglected at the moment.

  BOYLE GUARDIANS—CASE OF JOSEPH GRADY.
  Mr. TULLY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a claim has been received from the Boyle Board of Guardians for a sum of £5 5s. for the maintenance of a boy named Joseph Grady, the son of Private John Grady, now serving with the first battalion of the Connaught Rangers;

  1355
  and whether he will direct that this sum, which is calculated at 3d. a day, will be forwarded to the workhouse authorities in Boyle.
  LORD STANLEY: This claim has been received. Under the Army Act the man is only liable to a stoppage of 3d. for the support of his family. This 3d. has been paid to the man's wife. The clerk to the guardians has been informed accordingly.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Navy Estimate be circulated.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope this evening.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to move the Speaker out of the chair on them?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot indulge in any conjectures on that subject at the present moment.

NEW BILLS.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Acts relating to Industrial Schools, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Flower, Captain Norton, Sir Fortescue Flannery, and Mr. Corrie Grant.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Acts relating to Industrial Schools," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION.
Bill to amend the Sovereign's Accession Oath as regards the statements in it concerning the Roman Catholic religion, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Blake, Mr. Abraham, Captain Donelan, Mr.
1356
Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Flynn. Mr. Hayden. Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Boland.

SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
"To amend the Sovereign's Accession Oath as regards the statements in it concerning the Roman Catholic-Religion," presented.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the first time."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
*Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I rise to oppose this Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury told us yesterday that there would he no objection to the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider this question. I think it entirely premature to introduce a Bill dealing with the matter, until the presentation of the report of the Joint Committee of the two Houses appointed to consider whether any alteration of the King's Oath is necessary. The hon. Member who is going to introduce this Bill would like to obliterate from the Oath taken by His Majesty on his Accession and Coronation, the word "Protestant," and everything that would maintain the Protestant succession to the Crown of these realms, I feel very strongly on this question, and that it is extremely undesirable in the present state of political opinion and the state of affairs in Europe, that the one throne in Europe which is securely fixed in the affections of the people should be tampered with. I do not say if the Oath taken by His Majesty in the House of Lords were to be considered now for the first time that the form of words in it would exactly suit the present day; but I feel sure that our ancestors who assisted to build up the great fabric of the British Constitution, and based it on the Protestant religion, were fully justified in the protest that they made against the efforts which had been persistently used from time to time to destroy the civil and religious liberties of the people, and to establish the Roman Catholic religion. I will not take up the time of the House —[Cries from the Irish benches of "Go on!"]—for I hope I know what is due to the House. I know hon. Members are

1357
anxious to consider other important matters, and I am not one of those who will trespass on the time of the House of Commons at any undue length. Still I feel bound on this occasion to enter a protest against any attempt to tamper with the Protestantism of the British Constitution.

SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [11th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
And which Amendment was—
"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 Cummand at Gibraltar of Major General Sir Henry Colvile, K.C.M.G., C.B.; instead thereof."—(Mr. Charles Douglas.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*COLONEL BLUNDELL: I have no knowledge of Sir Henry Colvile's case or of the case of the Secretary of State for War, beyond what I heard last night. The reason why I wish to make a few remarks is that this is, in my view, a case of an officer invited to resign his appointment for one thing only, when, in reality, he is removed for something else. In my view the false or incomplete issue upon which Sir Henry Colvile was called upon to resign has wrecked his career by inducing him to write to the press. He was invited to resign upon the Lindley affair, but the whole facts of that affair had been gone into before he was reappointed to the command at Gibraltar. Whether Colonel Spragge made a good or a bad defence could not affect the question whether Sir Henry Colvile should have gone on when he got Colonel Spragge's
1358
message. The fateful moment for General Colvile was when he decided to go on and not to go back to Lindley. Sir Henry Colvile's decision, which was either right or wrong, was made anterior to Colonel Spragge's defence. I venture to think that he was recalled for the reasons stated in the speech of the right hon. the Secretary of State for War, which I will read.
"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."
Now, to suggest resignation upon the Lindley affair, which had already been decided, was what no man who was prepared to stand a court-martial about the Lindley affair could possibly accede to. I venture to think that, in such a complicated case, it would have been better to have recalled Sir Henry Colvile direct. He need not have been employed again unless the views of the authorities changed. But they might have changed, for it must be recollected that at Paardeberg it was the action of part of his division—the Canadians and the 7th Company of the Engineers, supported by the Gordon Highlanders—in pushing forward at three in the morning, and entrenching themselves within eighty yards of Cronje's defences, which finally forced on the surrender of the Boer commander. This act showed resource and an appreciation of the conditions of modern warfare which we do not always find; now the question arises, ought General Colvile to have the credit of this? I think so, because I recall that he advocated the same system at Maggersfontein. Thus General Colvile had a great deal to his credit, even if he had other instances to militate against it. I think the action of the War Office has been very fitful in this matter, and that it does not tend towards the interest of discipline as it used to be regarded in the Army.
*MR. LAWSON WALTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War pointed out in his speech last night that he was not influenced in his view of this case either by the social position which General Colvile occupies, or by the newspaper clamour which he told us had been raised in support of it. If that declaration was made by the right hon. Gentleman in order to assure the House of his impartiality and of his firmness the House needed no such assurance. But if the observation sprang from a feeling that a reflection could be made upon the character of this attempt to secure for General Colvile some hearing by a competent military tribunal, then I venture to ask the House to believe that those of us who are taking an interest in this subject entirely disclaim any such motive. We approach the case in no partisan sense. It involves a great public question relating to the status of military officers and the steps that ought to be taken before they are deprived of their position in His Majesty's service. So far as I am personally concerned, the issue of this discussion is a matter of indifference. Except that I have had placed in my hands some papers by my hon. friend the Member for North-West Lanark, who drew attention to the subject, and that I have had the opportunity of a general explanation from General Colvile, that officer is a complete stranger to me. What we ask the House to establish by the acceptance of the Amendment is that a military officer before he is deprived of high command shall have his conduct investigated by a competent military tribunal, before which he may be heard in his defence. The most fundamental principle of justice is that an accused person should be heard before he is condemned. There is no jurisdiction so barbarous as not to be founded on that principle; there is no system of jurisprudence which fails to be arbitrary if that principle is not observed. I think that in a very few minutes I can satisfy the House that General Colvile, an eminent officer, has been compulsorily retired without ever having had an opportunity of even hearing the materials upon which the charges against him are founded, or of
1360
offering to any competent military tribunal an answer to these imputations.
What is the case against him? It resolves itself into two charges. The first is an indictment connected with Sanna's Post; the second connected with the surrender at Lindley. The right hon. Gentleman fully appreciated the relative importance of these two accusations and he put in the forefront the conduct of General Colvile in relation to Sanna's Post. What is the accusation It is that General Colvile, when a short distance removed from General Broad-wood, communicated with General Broadwood, who was in action with the Boers, and invited General Broadwood to neglect the immediate duties which devolved upon him in connection with the command of his troops, and travel a distance of two or three miles in order to hold a personal interview with General Colvile. The second charge is that General Colvile, instead of proceeding to capture or rescue the lost guns, withdrew his troops in another direction. The right hon. Gentleman made these charges against an officer of tried capacity, and, led the House to believe that these constituted an accurate statement of facts, which had been accepted by General Colvile. Now, so far from General Colvile accepting that satement as accurate, he has all along strenuously contested all of these allegations, and therefore it is obvious, in the interests of justice and fair play, that a case has arisen for inquiry. General Colvile's argument is that, so far from having called upon General Broadwood to join him while General Broadwood was engaged in military operations, he issued that summons hours after the military operations had concluded; and that, so far from withdrawing his troops and avoiding his duty of rescuing, or capturing the lost guns, he withdrew his troops in order that by a flank movement he might intercept the Boers, and so secure the guns. If that allegation is founded on fact, surely General Colvile is entitled to have his view presented for consideration before a properly constituted military tribunal.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Brodrick,): The whole case was put by General

1361
Colvile to Lord Roberts and considered by him before any action was taken.
*MR. LAWSON WALTON: I should like to know—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the information—in what form, where, and on what occasion General Colvile ever presented for the consideration of the present Secretary of State for War or the Commander-in-Chief the statement of his case. If the right hon. Gentleman will only bear with me for a moment, I think I will make it clear to him that the only statement ever made to Lord Roberts by General Colvile was a statement briefly made in the course of an interview of a few minutes, before any charge had been formulated against him and when there was no opportunity of framing an accusation which he might have challenged or answered. A statement was put into writing by General Colvile at a later stage, and that statement was submitted to the Army Committee at the War Office, consisting of the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Wolseley; and that statement was considered so entirely satisfactory that they approved of' General Colvile resuming his command at Gibraltar. That statement, so far from leading to censure, established General Colvile's acquittal from the charges made against him. In regard to Sanna's Post, I say that there is on the part of General Colvile a complete answer; and what is more important, until last night, Sanna's Post has never been relied on by the right hon. Gentleman in supporting the action taken against General Colvile. It has never before been put forward as a ground for this distinguished officer being removed from his command.
Let me establish that proposition. The first reference to Sanna's Post appears in the despatch which Lord Roberts wrote and sent to the War Office. In that despatch he describes General Colvile's operation of withdrawing his troops in order to intercept the Boers and guns by a flank movement as not quite an error of judgment, because the phrase used was—
"It would have been better if General Colvile, instead of seeking to rescue the guns by a flank movement, had operated directly upon
1362
the position where the guns were, and from which the Boers were transporting them."
That is a qualified and indirect reflection on the exercise of judgment on the part of General Colvile. Later a letter was written to General Colvile, when he was at Gibraltar, explaining to him the grounds upon which—and in which the right hon. Gentleman concurred with Lord Roberts—it had been decided to withdraw him from his command. That letter was written on 16th December last, and stated that the gravamen of the ease against General Colvile was in connection with the Lindley affair alone. It runs as follows:—
"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 General Sir George White on receipt of this letter, and quit Gibraltar."
If Sanna's Post was relied on on 11th December as a ground for the peremptory withdrawal of General Colvile from Gibraltar, why was it not mentioned in that letter? The right hon. Gentleman intimated last night that the history of Sanna's Post had gradually developed, and that new light had been thrown on that unfortunate affair; but as late as 21st February in the present year the Secretary of State alleged as the only ground for the measure against General Colvile the Lindley surrender. Sanna's Post was not mentioned at all. What reliance can, be placed upon the case which rests mainly on General Colvile's conduct at Sanna's Post, when no inquiry on that affair has ever been held, when General Colvile has never had an opportunity of hearing the statements made to Lord Roberts in regard to it, and when no mention has been made of it until last night, and it has never been put forward as one of the reasons?
*MR. BRODRICK: The hon. and learned gentleman is speaking from a brief supplied to him by General Colvile. I am therefore surprised he does not know that there is a memorandum by General Colvile dealing with the whole question of Sanna's Post.
*Mr. LAWSON WALTON: I fail to appreciate the force of the right hon. Gentleman's interposition; the only motive apparently was to indulge in a cheap sneer at my expense, which will not serve the right hon. Gentleman. The point I understand him to make is this, that with regard to the story of Sanna's Post, General Colvile has had an opportunity of clearing himself. The right hon. Gentleman gave us what he said was the story of Sanna's Post, but what was the source of inspiration from which that story came? What are the historical data upon which that version rests? They were supplied by Lord Roberts, and I have no doubt were conscientiously believed in by Lord Roberts and by the right hon. Gentleman himself; but where does Lord Roberts get these statements? He got those statements through various officers from information derived from various persons and through various channels, and General Colvile has had no opportunity of checking those statements or of cross-examining those persons who made them. Lord Roberts is put into possession of a version of these incidents through statements made behind the back of the officer involved, who has had no opportunity of giving his answer to them. Yet, when those statements are put forward, it is said that they are the result of an inquiry in which General Colvile had every opportunity given to him for defence, and therefore he is not injured in that matter, having had a full opportunity of putting his case before his judges.
Now, I shall show the House in a moment that all that has ever been produced by General Colvile was a memorandum which was sent to the War Office when his conduct was under investigation after the Sanna's Post affair and the Lindley disaster, and when that explanation was regarded as satisfactory by those who were qualified to express an opinion. Before going further, let me first touch upon the Lindley case. What was the Lindley case? It was that General Colvile failed to go back eighteen or twenty-two miles in order to rescue Yeomanry in difficulties. That, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, was a most inhuman proceeding.
1364
He implied it rather than said it, because he told us of other officers who had travelled twice the distance and succeeded in rendering important service to the Yeomanry. But he did not tell the House that General Colvile did not follow their example because he was under orders to go elsewhere, The other officers were under orders to go to Lindley. General Colvile was under orders to go to Heilbron, and, according to those orders, he had to be at Heilbron the next day, and he could not go back to the rescue of the Yeomanry at Lindley without disobeying the specific orders which he had received. I do not suggest to the House that this is a matter which we can investigate, but it is a matter which should be investigated. I say that General Colvile has a case with regard to the Lindley disaster which should be tried, a case upon which a competent military tribunal should express some verdict. Now Lindley is in a different position from Sanna's Post, because, while there never was an inquiry into the affair at Sanna's Post, with regard to the Lindley disaster there were two, the one which most nearly approached a judicial inquiry being directed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. When General Colvile returned to this country from South Africa he was told that Lord Roberts had criticised his action, and was asked to furnish an explanation, which he did: but the right hon. Gentleman fails to see the distinction between an answer to an accusation framed and an explanation given by an accused person before he knows the charge made against him. General Colvile told his own version, and shortly after a despatch was received from Lord Roberts, and a Committee consisting of Lord Lansdowne, the then Secretary of State for War, and Lord Wolseley investigated the matter, and they approved of General Colvile taking up his command at Gibraltar. That took place in August. In the month of December the right hon. Gentleman succeeded Lord Lansdowne at the War Office, and Lord Roberts succeeded Lord Wolseley as Commander-in-Chief. Last night the right hon. Gentleman told us that the decision of that Committee was arrived at without the knowledge of Lord Roberts.
*MR. BRODRICK: What I said was that the committee of inquiry with regard to the Lindley disaster was brought to my knowledge by Sir Evelyn Wood, and by me referred to Lord Roberts, who had not been previously consulted.
*MR. LAWSON WALTON: But even so, supposing that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor Lord Lansdowne and the late Commander-in-Chief had come to the conclusion that they might restore General Colvile to his command at Gibraltar without consultation with Lord Roberts, surely, if the Secretary for War for the time being and the Commander-in-Chief for the time being had investigated the circumstances of an officer's conduct and come to a decision upon it, there ought to be an end to the matter. How long was an officer to hold his command subject to the change of the political Minister at the War Office, subject to the review- of a more vigorous and sweeping Secretary of State with reforms in prospect and a new Commander-in-Chief with different ideas of discipline? Without any intimation to him of any sort or kind, without any new charge being brought against him, that decision in his favour was cancelled, and he was withdrawn from the command which he had been allowed to take up. The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct when he said that a new fact came to his knowledge, namely, the report of the inquiry in South Africa with regard to the Lindley disaster. Let us assume for a moment that the court in South Africa did investigate the cause of the Lindley disaster—that investigation was behind General Colvile's back; he was not there either personally or by representation; there was no one to sift the evidence on his behalf, and no one to establish conclusions which might tell in his favour. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to act upon that report without calling the attention of General Colvile himself to it or even sending him a copy of it. The action taken by the right hon. Gentleman in this case is an action taken upon the report of an inquiry at which General Colvile was not present, and he acted upon it without asking General Colvile whether he had anything to say with regard to it.
1366
I suggest that the action of the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely unfair, and I submit that the right hon. Gentle man has failed to show any new facts in view of the decision which was arrived at by his predecessor and Lord Wolseley, who had a statement before them on which they acted, and which, so far as I know, is the only statement General Colvile has published with regard to this matter. No one can feel a higher respect for Lord Roberts than I entertain, but he is but mortal; he was not himself an eye-witness of the conduct of General Colvile either at Lindley or Sauna's Post. He only derived his impressions of these incidents from versions given by others. Lord Roberts never pretended to have conducted any independent investigation at which General Colvile had an opportunity of being heard, and therefore the fact that Lord Roberts had formed this impression upon ex parte statements and evidence never submitted to cross-examination was not sufficient ground for the Secretary of State for War to review the action of his predecessors in removing him—General Colvile—from his command.
The question rests, as I have said, upon this, that Sauna's Post has never been a subject of inquiry at all, and with regard to Lindley there has been no inquiry at which General Colvile has been present, or with regard to which his defence has ever been heard. Let not our view be clouded by General Colvile's unfortunate communication to the press. I am not here to approve or disapprove that action, it falls altogether outside the scope of this motion, because all the motion asks is that General Colvile's conduct in South Africa, upon which his withdrawal from South Africa was founded, should be the subject of investigation. So far as the communication to the press is concerned, though it may be blameable, there is a good deal to be said in extenuation of it The action of the Secretary for War in regard to General Colvile s communication to the press only illustrates the arbitrary way in which the War Office acted even towards officers in high command. After that paragraph appeared in the newspapers General Colvile received a short letter from the War Office asking him whether it was published on his authority. He

1367
was not invited to otter any explanation of the circumstances which might in some degree have extenuated his conduct. He was simply asked if it was published by his authority. He replied in the affirmative, and then he was compulsorily retired, and his retiring pay permanently reduced. That may be right or it may be wrong, but before the War Office judges a man and metes out punishment to him, they ought to investigate the circumstances under which his conduct took place. As my hon. friend said, General Colvile had received the greatest possible provocation; he had received a letter from his superior in command that he must resign his command forthwith and immediately return home. After thirty years brilliant service in the Army, to be withdrawn from his command and bade return by the next mail steamer because of action in South Africa mouths before, after a favourable opinion had been expressed of his conduct by the War Office, was conduct calculated to provoke a man to an act which in calmer moments he would not be guilty of. One must remember, too, that General Colvile was a half-pay officer, and he was entitled to communicate with the press and sit in this House and to stump the country and point out the mode in which military matters have been or are being conducted, and I say with regard to this matter, although his defence and vindication may fail on inquiry, he ought to be allowed a hearing, and that the circumstances ought to be investigated by the War Office and receive that consideration which they appear to warrant.
So much for that part of the case which the right hon. Gentleman has made; but part of the case of the right hon. Gentleman has been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman stated on the 21st of February that General Colville had been deprived of his command owing to inefficiency in the field. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to rely only upon the misconduct of General Colvile on the two occasions to which he referred I understand his answer, but a very large proportion of this House are under the impression that Lord Roberts was expressing a general opinion with regard to General Colvile in connection with his
1368
capacity as a commanding officer. The past record of General Colvile as regards South Africa is that he has received on four occasions the commendation of his commanding officer. First of all, at Belmont and Magersfontein. Despatches sent to Lord Wolseley by Lord Methuen both refer in complimentary terms to General Colvile; next in regard to Paardeberg and Poplar Grove, he had the commendation of Lord Roberts himself. In that campaign General Colvile was mentioned favourably by his superiors on four occasions. There were these two blots, and in regard to those he has never been heard. No materials have ever been supplied to show the grounds of this action by the War Office, and all that General Colvile asks by this motion is that ho shall have the satisfaction of knowing that his case has been heard, before his career in the public service is finally ended. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this remedy is useless to General Colvile, because he would be no better off after that inquiry has been held; that, in fact, he would be in a worse position than if he was condemned unheard. That was always the view of the prosecution before the trial takes place, but it is no answer to a man who asks to be fairly tried to say so. At all events, that is a line which I hope we shall never follow in this country when a military case arises for consideration. That was the logic which influenced the French War Minister when the case of Captain Dreyfus arose, but by a British Minister of War no such argument can surely be put forward. All that General Colvile asks is that he may have the satisfaction of learning what the materials were upon which this action was taken, so that he may be able to put before the country the answer which he seeks to make to the accusation. I submit that it is a small requital for thirty years of brilliant public service to yield to an officer the small demand that his case shall be heard before his condemnation is finally recorded.
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYXDER: In a portion of his remarks last night the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was in favour of bringing officers before courts-martial, but

1369
that if the House of Commons is not prepared to accept the decision of such distinguished officers as Lord Roberts, Lord Kitchener, and Lord Wolseley, there is very little likelihood of their accepting the views of any subordinate officers. No one has a deeper and more profound respect for the opinion of such a distinguished man as our Commander-in-Chief than myself, and in saying that I believe I am echoing the opinion of every one in this House; but at the same time I cannot help feeling with the hon. Member who has just sat down that when the case of a very distinguished general, who for the last thirty years has given distinguished services to the country, is brought before the bar of public opinion it should not be subjected to individual opinion, but should go through all the military machinery possible for the law to give. It has been clearly shown that in the case of General Colvile, judging from the view of courts-martial, there has not been a complete case presented on the side of General Colvile, and in coming to a decision like that which the Commander-in-Chief has arrived at they have come to it not through hearing evidence on both sides, but by hearing the evidence for the prosecution only.
There is no better instance of this than in the case of the Lindley disaster and Sauna's Post. It is upon the Lindley affair that General Colvile has been condemned practically to expulsion from the Army. I was not an officer in General Colvile's column, nor in the 13th Yeomanry; I was not actually on the spot when the matter occurred, but I was next door to it. I was an officer in Lord Methuen's column, which came with great, but, unfortunately, not sufficient, despatch to try to relieve Colonel Spragge's Yeomanry. From the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman last night one would have thought that Lord Methuen's column being at Kroonstadt and General Colvile's between Lindley and Heilbron, and messages being sent to both, they were each in a position to proceed, and that Lord Methuen's column did proceed, with the greatest possible despatch, to the relief of Colonel Spragge's Yeomanry at Lindley. That, however, is not the fact. The fact is that sitting at Kroonstadt as we Were, after a very tedious march through
1370
the whole of the western portion of the Orange River Colony, we had not been there for more than thirty-six hours before an order came to Lord Methuen to proceed with the greatest despatch to the relief not of Colonel Spragge,. but of General Colvile. The House might have supposed that General Colvile, moving aimlessly and quietly along to Heilbron, received a message that Colonel Spragge was in dire distress and yet refused to return. But the case is that General Colvile immediately he left Lindley was attacked most severely for two days by a large Boer force, so much so that a message was sent to Lord Methuen to follow the Heilbron road to assist General Colvile. Therefore, when the latter received the message from Colonel Spragge he was in an extremely difficult position himself. General Colvile and Lord Methuen were each in command of a column, but it is as well to scrutinise how those columns were composed. Lord Methuen was in command of a column of 1,200 mounted men with several guns and a brigade of infantry, while General Colvile when ho left Lindley was in command of a column consisting only of a brigade of infantry and fifty mounted men, with possibly a battery of artillery and two naval guns. It is difficult for the House to appreciate the position, but anybody who has been in South Africa will bear me out that such a force as General Colvile's was altogether inadequate to go through that extremely difficult country when opposed by a large body of Boers. The artillery itself, useful and indispensable as it may be, is a great encumbrance to a general going through such country, and a force of considerably more than fifty men was needed to adequately protect the guns alone. Three days after Lord Methuen arrived at Lindley he was ordered to proceed to Heilbron, thus going through much the same country as General Colvile had traversed, but, in spite of his much larger force, Lord Methuen for two days met with severe opposition from the Boers. It was most difficult country to operate in; without an adequate supply of cavalry it would be very hard for a force to get through, and practically impossible for a brigade of infantry to attempt any turning movement against the enemy. My conten-

1371
tion is that in the interests of a distinguished general the case is really worth sifting. General Colvile may have been wrong not to return to Lindley, but at any rate he has a very good answer for not so doing in the facts I have described. I may be presumptuous in making a remark upon a military point, but this is worth considering. Had General Colvile decided to return to Lindley, what would have happened? There were 2,000 Boers around him. The moment he attempted to retire with his inadequate force, the Boers, as we have seen in several instances, would have become much more venturesome, and he would have had the greatest possible difficulty in finding his way back. If he had succeeded in getting back, he would have found an immense force of Boers surrounding Colonel Spragge, and it is quite a question whether, with the force at his disposal, General Colvile would have been able to relieve the Yeomanry.
My only reason for rising was to bring this point before the House, because in these matters a little local colour is needed. When Lord Methuen's force arrived at Lindley and found that Colonel Spragge's column had surrendered, the general opinion was against General Colvile. But after we had proceeded to Heilbron and had the opportunity of appreciating the local incidents, circumstances, and difficult conditions under which General Colvile had laboured between Lindley and Heilbron, I am prepared to say, perhaps not the universal, but certainly the prevalent opinion in Lord Methuen's column was that General Colvile was absolutely exonerated from all blame with regard to the Lindley surrender. There is at any rate a sufficiently good case for a thorough investigation. Therefore, though it is with the greatest reluctance I have risen, recognising the public obloquy and, disgrace under which a general with such y distinguished past has been placed, without, in my judgment, having had due consideration or a proper opportunity of defence, I feel under the circumstances I must associate myself with the hon. Gentleman who has moved this motion. My right hon. friend says that the practice of introducing these questions into the House of Commons may militate against the discipline of the Army. I
1372
have no such fear. I rather believe if you are to have discipline on its surest basis it must be built upon the most equitable and just foundations, and it is because I feel that, whether General Colvile is right or wrong, there has not been the fullest investigation of all the circumstances which surround this matter, and of the difficult conditions in which that general was placed, that I associate myself with the motion before the House.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and, forty Members being found present—
COLONEL NOLANsaid that when he read in the newspapers ok the dismissal of General Colvile from his command at Gibraltar, ho thought that he must have behaved very badly indeed, because if half-a-dozen men had been ordered to go and shoot the general it would have been a, punishment but very little more severe than that of dismissing him from the Service without trial and practically without inquiry. When he read General Colvile's statement in the press he came to the opinion that he had a good deal to say for himself, but that it could not possibly be true, otherwise he would not have been dismissed. He was, therefore, greatly astonished to find on the previous evening that General Colvile had spoken within the truth, and that the only difference of opinion was as to whether he was eighteen or twenty-three miles from Lindley. The affair at Sauna's Post revealed the weak spot in the staff' administration. The staff were very badly informed. The Boers were much stronger and more mobile than the staff fancied. When this country was last engaged in a big campaign—at the time of the Peninsular War—there was a Quartermaster's Department, which looked after the marching of the troops, settled the routes, and generally saw that the general's ideas were carried into effect. That Department was now practically abolished. There was a Quartermaster General, but he was little more than a commissariat officer. There was no specialised staff to look after the marching and location of the troops or the general

1373
conduct of the war, and in the absence of such a specialised staff the general staff had to discharge those duties. The Germans had such a body of officers. There had been many failures during the war in consequence of the bad condition of the staff—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must keep to the question of General Colvile.
Colonel NOLANexplained that he was trying to prove that General Colvile was a victim of the bad staff. That to a Certain extent was admitted, and he was attempting to relieve the members of the start by throwing the blame on the system. At Sauna's Post the staff left the right flank in a very weak position, and that the Boers were very strong was proved by the ease with which they swept Colonel Broadwood in. That their strength was unknown to the staff was shown by the very weak force which guarded the waterworks, because the retention of the waterworks was essential to the health of Bloemfontein. from the debate of the previous evening one who had read nothing about the matter would have supposed that General Col-vile was, in some indirect way, mixed up with the disaster at Sauna's Post, and had somehow lost guns, prisoners, horses, and men The tact was that General Colvile was nowhere near the place and had nothing to do with Colonel Broad-wood at the time the losses were experienced. As soon as General Colvile's troops were felt to be near, the attack on Colonel Broadwood ceased, and so far as concerned the main purpose for which General Colvile was sent out, the object was achieved As to saving the guns, it was impossible for an infantry force to overtake fully-horsed artillery, and even if they could have caught them it would have been a, matter of a very few minutes for the Boers to have destroyed the guns and left them mere masses of useless steel.
He contended that General Colvile did everything he was able to do in order to save General Broadwood at Sauna's Post, and that he exercised a proper discretion in not following an ambuscading force of Boers into a spruit in a time of tropical heat. In his judgment the staff did not
1374
do their work well on the right flank at that time; they undervalued De Wet's forces, and the staff did not like the prospect of an inquiry into the affair at Sauna's Post. Sir Evelyn Wood never alluded to Sauna's Post, and General Colvile was not dismissed for that mistake. The message which General Colvile received from Colonel Spragge at Lindley was not a very urgent message, and the Yeomanry, besides, appeared to have been summoned by a false message, which, in some way not explained, was not in cipher. Any common sense man would have ordered General Colvile to have stayed at Lindley for a day until the men rallied, and there was no common sense in leading 500 men by themselves. If Colonel Spragge's message had stated that his force was in danger of being destroyed, then General Colvile might have decided to return at all hazards to try to save him. It was said that the Yeomanry were summoned by a false message, but it so how were they summoned, and how did Colonel Spragge act on such a message? Colonel Spragge in his opinion was the man who should have gone through all this trouble, and should have been brought to a court-martial. If this were done he did not think Colonel Spragge would get out of it with honour. Why they had fastened upon General Colvile was difficult to understand. He should be very much astonished if the debate in the House did not produce a very great effect upon public opinion in favour of General Colvile, who had served the country very honestly and bravely as a general. He obeyed all his orders and saved Colonel Broadwood at Sanna's Post, and he brought his force safely through a difficult country, although he was not able on every occasion to rectify the errors of his staff.
MR. PIRIEsaid it was the exception which generally proved the rule, and in this case the exception was the speech of the hon. Baronet, whilst the rule consisted in the impossibility of imagining a court of appeal more unfitted than the House of Commons to sit as a military tribunal. This House could not be worse constituted to form a decision upon a military question like

1375
this, and it ought not to be asked to form such a decision. Whether from the point of view of Members of this House or the Service, this was a most important and grave question, and he begged the House not to run away from the main point at issue, which was not whether General Colville was to be dismissed from the Army, but whether he was entitled to a court-martial or a court of inquiry. That was the wording of the resolution, and it was only a minor point that night as to his military conduct. He agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, that ultimately, as a last resource for the military discipline of the Army, this House should be referred to, but before cases came before this House they should be threshed out by evidence at a military court of inquiry, and then the verdict of this House could be asked for. To say that they were in a position to debate this question from the point of view as to whether an officer was efficient or not was quite a mistake. He took the view that the Army system of such condemnation as in the present case was wrong. Every officer before dismissal was entitled to the same justice which a private soldier was entitled to, and which he had a right to demand.
During the five years he had been in the House no less than at least four cases presenting the same features as this one had come before the House. He would not recall them at any length. There was an unspeakably painful case in 1896, in which a gross crime had been condoned and an injustice had been done, and where no court of inquiry had been held, and it was brought up in the House on account of that reason, the House giving most unfortunately a distinct party vote on what was in no way a party question. The following year there was another case in connection with the disbandment of a Volunteer battalion, where had there been a court of inquiry by the military authorities the matter would never have come before the House of Commons. In the year before last he himself brought up a very painful case where an officer had been denied an inquiry, and this preyed on him so much that his mind was unhinged and the unfortunate man committed suicide. It was imperative that the House should
1376
guard itself against the repetition of such cases by insisting that in all such cases a court of inquiry or a court martial should be held. In this case the Government were shrinking from publicity, while General Colvile courted it. He would, not go into the military aspect of the question, but he thought this man should have a fair trial, and his defence in vindication of his action should be heard, and more especially so in view of the condoning of General Colvile's conduct to a great extent by his reappointment to Gibraltar on his return front South Africa. He regarded the communication made to the press by General Colvile as indefensible and subversive of all military discipline. He could not be oblivious of the fact, however, that General Colvile considered himself, and, legitimately so, in his opinion, to be on half-pay when he issued his statement to the press. Another palliation of that action was to be found in the unhappy precedents which were set by other British generals who had come from South Africa, and whose first object on reaching home seemed to be to let their views be known to the press. There was the case of Sir Charles Warren and of others who communicated their views to the press. In palliation also of General Colvile's action the very fact of leakage of statements regarding him, from the War Office must have been, very trying in his particular case, and this matter should receive strict investigation from the Secretary of State for War. A great parade of leniency had been made by the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with General Colvile, and he said he had acted out of consideration for this general and had let him down lightly. He accepted the statement, but he considered that a brave man did not want leniency but wanted justice. There was naturally a desire on the part of the House that there should, be no leniency and no favour shown when they remembered the great disasters which had happened in South Africa, but all they should ask themselves was whether this man was getting fair play and justice. In granting a court of inquiry they would be adopting a severer course than the Government themselves had adopted, and yet they would be acting in accordance with the

1377
views of the Secretary for War himself, for he had already stated that he was in favour of bringing an officer before a court martial whenever it was possible. Why was it not possible in this case? He hoped the Government would see that justice was done to General Colvile. The Secretary of State for War said he bad no assurance that if there was a court-martial the House would accept its verdict any more than the present decision. But if the decision of the court-martial came before the House it would come with the evidence for and against it, and that was a very different thing.
Mr. BRODRICK: What would happen if, after hon. Members had read the evidence, their opinion was different to that of the court-martial?
*MR. PIRIEsaid that in such a ease the House would be in a very much better position to judge. It must be plain to everybody that after a fair trial by a court-martial, naturally the House would not differ nearly so readily with the decision of such a court as it would with the decision of one officer, no matter bow highly placed. The right hon. Gentleman had said that be would not yield to favouritism or to backdoor influence. He thought this showed a loss of a sense of what was seemly and right, that the Secretary for War should think it necessary to take credit for such action as that; it was on a par with his famous statement that no high appointments for service in the field were to be made but of men of tried capacity in war; that any other system should have existed reminded one forcibly of the analogy of China, already alluded to in another place. He had also stated that if appointments in the field were undesirable for certain men, then appointments at home for the same men were also undesirable. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman it was only too well known that there were already certain appointments which had been made at home and given to generals who had left South Africa because their appointments in the field were considered undesirable, and that what was wanted in all cases was stern even-handed justice and nothing else. The Secretary for War made a very just point against his conduct being called
1378
into question, seeing that be was called upon to act on the advice of high military authority. He agreed with that view, but for this very reason he urged more strongly than ever a court-martial in this case, as such cases would constantly recur and continue coming before this House, to the detriment of discipline in. the Service so long as the present system of arbitrary dismissal existed. He begged to support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Those who have not themselves had any actual experience of war may have some difficulty in understanding in what way the occurrence of a disaster may affect the character of a general responsible for it. I would like, so far as I may be permitted to do so, to clear that difficulty out of the way. Hon. Members asked, very naturally, why, if a certain general was removed for this disaster, a certain other general should not be removed for that disaster, and indeed why all generals should not be removed for all disasters? War is a game with a good deal of chance in it, and, from the little I have seen of it, I should say that nothing in war ever goes right except occasionally by accident. The fact of a successful or an unsuccessful action being fought does not appear to be any accurate measure of the capacity or military character of the general officer who was in command. It is quite possible that in an unsuccessful action a general may show qualities of courage and resource for which there would otherwise have been no scope. General Broadwood, for instance, was responsible for the command of the convoy at Sanna's Post. Such, however, was his bearing and conduct, and the high reputation which he had held and which he still holds in the Army, that after the disaster at Sauna's Post, General Broad-wood s position was even more secure than before—he was even more trusted by his superiors and his men. On the other hand, there are general officers who have been responsible for no particular disaster, but who even in their success, or I should perhaps rather say their immunity from failure, have gained a most unenviable reputation. General officers or officers in high command in the

1379
Army ought not to be broken merely because they are responsible for disasters, but only if those disasters throw a light on their incompetency or inefficiency. When it is known by a competent superior officer that an officer-is not a good officer, though he was not responsible for any disaster, there may be good grounds for removing him from his command, or appointing him to another command.
We have listened to two very effective Speeches—one from the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds, who put the legal aspect of the question as powerfully as it could be put, and the other from the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Wilts, who made a contribution to the debate which was most striking, from the fact that it came from one who had personal experience of these events. The hon. and learned Member for South Leeds has put the legal aspect of the question; but soldiers are not lawyers, and their methods will not always bear the strict scrutiny of those who have given their life to the study of the law and the study of words. So long as the House is satisfied of the motives by which military officers have been actuated, it ought not to lay too great stress on technical or legal detail which may appear to have been neglected. The substance of the charge against General Colvile is the case of Sauna's Post. There may have been occasions before Sanua's Post—I do not say there were—when the conduct of that gallant officer did not give entire satisfaction. But it is upon Sanna's Post almost entirely that the rights and the wrongs of this question stand. I venture to say that a more damning case than the one laid by the Secretary for War before the House last night, on the subject of Sauna's Post—if the representations and statements were correct—was hardly ever preferred against a general officer in this House. The hon. and learned Member for South Leeds has disputed the facts. If it came to a question of balancing the evidence, I am much inclined to pin my faith to the decision come to by Lord Roberts. As to the Lindley affair, I wrote a long time ago to the War Office giving my humble opinion, having personally collected information on the
1380
spot. If the Lindley affair had been the only case against General Colvile, that would not have been worth pressing, but it must be considered together with the affair of Sanna's Post. These affairs had a cumulative aspect which rendered them much more significant. They were complicated, difficult, and technical matters, and we must trust to the men on the spot. In this case the military expert on the spot was Lord Roberts, who has been trusted, not in vain, in the greatest crisis of our history, with the largest army we have ever sent beyond the seas.
The hon. and learned Member for South Leeds made a point against the Government, which I feel is a very legitimate and valid point. He said, if it be true that General-Colvile made a fault, why was it that the official despatch, published since, did not make any reference to that faultor point out the blame he incurred? Perhaps it will not be entirely agreeable to many of my friends on this side of the House if I say that I have noticed in the last three wars in which we have been engaged a tendency among military officers—arising partly from good nature towards their comrades, partly from the dislike of public scrutiny—to hush everything up, to make everything look as fair as possible, to tell what is called the official truth, to present a version of the truth which contains about seventy-five per cent. of the actual article. So long as a force gets a victory somehow, all the ugly facts are smoothed and varnished over, rotten reputations are propped up, and officers known as incapable are allowed to hang on and linger in their commands in the hope that at the end of the war they may be shunted into private life without a scandal. On whom does the responsibility for the continuance of the system rest? When Lord Roberts went out to South Africa he struck out a new and true line. The truth, the whole truth, was to be told to the country frankly and fairly. The House will remember the publication of the Spion Kop despatches and the reception that that publication met with from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That settled the policy of candour in military matters, for some months to come at any rate. That is why the despatches contained no in-

1381
criminating matter in regard to General Colvile. General Colvile was retained in his command, but it was reduced; he was put in the second line, placed practically, if not actually, in an inferior position to a general a very long way his junior in rank—General Ian Hamilton. It was no doubt thought be would be able to get out of the matter without any scandal or disturbance arising. But at length it became impossible to keep up appearances any longer. At length the crash came. Lindley was piled on Sauna's Post, there was a stormy interview, the Ninth Division was broken up, and its commander returned to England, complimented certainly, cleared in the despatches, but ruined for ever in the field. It seems to me it does not lie in the mouths of those who attacked the Government so vehemently in respect to the publication of the Spion Kop despatches to complain that now, and since that occasion, a very judicious discretion and diplomatic reticence has been practised by the War Office and the military authorities. There is some apparent misconception as to the method of removing officers from the Army, and that is because there are two ways of doing the thing. In the first place, there is the process of a court of inquiry and court-martial, and in the second place, there is the process of selection. Suppose an officer has committeed no specific fault, but it is a matter of common knowledge that he is an incapable officer, would it be right that that officer should be given the command of a large body of troops? Surely it would be wrong to employ such an officer in time of peace if be was not thought good enough to employ in time of war. I have always been an enthusiastic advocate of selection. for I hold most strongly that the more nearly we can make our methods of promotion in the Army approximate to the methods employed by business firms, the more efficient the Army will be and the less soldiers we would have killed and captured in time of war.
Lord Roberts and the right hon. Gentleman did not care to take the responsibility of appointing an officer to a peace command when he had just been found unfit for an important command in the field of war. I understand that hon. Members opposite,
1382
including the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds, differ from that view, and think it is an improper and vicious mode of procedure. Their argument is that once General Colvile was appointed to the command in Gibraltar anything that had happened in South Africa was condoned. But what a bout the brigade? Were 3,000 British soldiers forming the efficient part of the garrison of our greatest Mediterranean fortress not to be considered? Had they not a right to expect to be commanded by as good an officer as those best qualified to judge could get? Of course some reasonable assurance of fixity of tenure must be given to subordinates; but the paramount principle which must be held before our eyes is that the Service exists not for the benefit of individuals, but only for the advantage and security of the State. Under the process of selection mistakes are made and, unwittingly, injustice done; but the process is at work not only in the Army, but in every branch of commerce, in every walk of life, and it is nowhere more essential and more vital to efficiency than in the military service. We have to look no further than the House of Commons to see the principle of selection working in all its glory. We know that sitting around there are Members just as able, just as conscientious, quite as intelligent, as any who now adorn the Treasury Bench, but no one would think it worth while to urge the claims of anyone who has not been preferred. Selection is the only hope for increased efficiency in the Army, it is the only way in which we can prevent the upper ranks being clogged with incapable men. The principle of selection is challenged, and would be destroyed if a Commission were appointed in this case. I have been told by a distinguished general officer that, in consequence of the outcry which has occurred, already several persons against whom it had been proposed to take steps have been screwed back into their places. In regard to the selection of officers, the House ought not to interfere in any particular instance except for grievous reason. Personally, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm support of the attitude of the Secretary of State for War, and I exhort the right hon. Gentleman, not only for the sake of the Army,

1383
but also in the interest of the House, not to budge an inch from the position he has taken up.
MR. YERBURGHsaid he entirely endorsed every word which had fallen from the hon. Member for Oldham on the question of the efficiency of the Army. Every Member of the House was with him when he said that what we had to do was to secure that efficiency, and that officers should be selected from the best men in the ranks of the Army. It was not because he and his friends took any other view that they were urging this enquiry upon the Government. The point at issue was not the question of selecting proper officers, but whether they were to give a man who was charged with a specific want of efficiency in his duty on evidence which he had not had an opportunity of testing, the chance of having the evidence placed and tested before a properly constituted military tribunal. Whether a mistake had occurred or not had nothing to do with the question. He contended that more efficiency would be secured if a rule was laid down that a man who was in the position of General Colvile at this time should have an opportunity of putting his ease plainly before the authorities. That in no way controverted the view of securing efficiency in the Army.
It had been said that the whole of the indictment against General Colvile rested upon Sanna's Post, which was the damaging point against General Colvile. That being so, it became necessary to deal with some detail in regard to that affair. Certain specific statements were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to which General Colvile took exception. His right hon. friend had stated that when General Colvile arrived at Bushman's Kop at 11 o'clock the guns had not yet been moved off; that they were not removed until between 12 and 1 o'clock; that the troops with General Broad wood were still in touch with the enemy; that firing was still going on; that no effort was made to come into touch with General Broadwood; and that no steps were taken to find out what General Broad-wood wished General Colvile to do. The facts of the case as stated by General Colvile were that he arrived at Bushman's
1384
Kop about 11.15 a.m.; that firing had ceased with the exception of two guns which were filing from a position held by the British troops; that when his aide-de-camp arrived at Broadwood's position he found that that General had formed up his troops; that they were out of touch with the enemy and were absolutely safe; and that, as a matter of fact, the engagement had ceased. The problem which Ceneral Colvile had to face was not that of giving assistance to General Broadwood's troops, but that of seeing whether he could secure the guns. Ceneral Colvile having arrived at Bushman's Kop, a high elevation from which he could survey the country with effect, he invited General Broad-wood to come up and take a survey of the country, with the idea of securing the guns. General Broadwood did not come. General Colvile, after surveying the country from Bushman's Kop, and giving his troops refreshments, decided to move on Waterval Drift. The Secretary for War told the House last night that one of his brigadiers advised General Colvile to advance straight upon the Waterworks in order to recover the guns. But his hon. friend did not tell the House, what was stated by General Colvile, that his other brigadier. General Smith-Dorrien, gave the opinion that General Colvile was perfectly right to advance on Waterval. After he had moved on he received a heliogram from Lord Roberts stating that the enemy would be in the spruits.
*MR. BRODRICK: What was the hour at which that heliogram was sent?
MR. YERBURGH: The message was received at 3.38.
*Mr. BRODRICK: Exactly four hours afterwards.
MR. YERBURGHsaid that was not the point—that General Colvile having arrived at Bushman's Kop, and finding the troops under General Broadwood were perfectly safe, was faced by the problem of how to recover the guns. He decided that the right way was to take the Waterval Drift, for the reason that between him and the Modder River there were two spruits to be crossed, which he believed to be occupied by the Boers, and the taking of which would have entailed serious loss on his troops.

1385
In the other route there were no spruits to cross, and General Colvile thought that if he could cross the Modder at Waterval Drift he would be able to seize a point which would give him a commanding position. That was the decision at which he arrived, and that decision was supported by his brigadier general, Smith-Dorrien, and it was the very decision which was afterwards suggested by Lord Roberts in his heliogram.
The right hon. Gentleman had said that General Colvile had left the men he had been sent to assist without any assistance, but as a matter of fact, judging from the orders sent by the Chief of the Staff, General Colvile, was not sent to assist 'General Broadwood at all; it was not true that, as alleged, he went "blundering about the country." In proof of this contention the hon. Member read extracts from the despatches and from a letter written by a prisoner, and said that if the cavalry had arrived as promised General Colvile would have been in a position to launch them against the enemy. Who was responsible for the disastrous delay an the arrival of the cavalry? That was a matter for inquiry, but they must not in the meantime place the blame on the head of General Colvile. If that commander had been properly supported he might have dealt a blow at the Boers, and probably have recaptured some, if not all, of the guns. General Colvile made his report to Lord Roberts, whose reply was. "You have made an excellent inarch, and it is rather a pity that I did not send you the day before." It was perfectly obvious that had General Colvile been sent the day before the result would have been very different. He would have arrived in ample time to assist General Broadwood. Nothing more was heard about the matter until about ten days afterwards, when General Colvile heard that Lord Roberts was very angry with him, because he was held responsible for the loss of the guns. He at once wrote to him to say he was not to believe any idle rumours, but if he had any complaint against him he should make it to him personally. For ten days after Sanna's Post no charge whatever was made against General Colvile, the soundness of whose judgment was demonstrated.
In conclusion the hon. Member said that he had put before the
1386
House various points that commended themselves to him as an outsider. So far as he could do so, he would assist his right hon. friend against any corrupt influence. He had no personal acquaintance with General Colvile until being asked to look through the Papers he did so, and, thinking General Colvile bad a good case, he supported it in the public interest. With regard to Lindley there were, two questions to be considered —first, whether he was right in going back at all; and second, whether he was able to go back. The second question had never been put to the House until it was brought forward by the hon. Member for the Shipley Division, who told the House that it was not possible for General Colvile to go back to the assistance of the Yeomanry. The telegram from General Colvile fully described his position, and the question was, Would he have been justified in going back? His right hon. friend said this was a small point.
*MR. BRODRICK: If I might interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I did not say it was a small point. I am afraid I must have been misheard in the gallery. What I did say was that it was more a point to be left to military men.
Mr. YERBURGHsaid this was an illustration of the disadvantage of the discussion in the House instead of the inquiry asked for. General Colvile had received direct orders to be at certain places on certain days, and naturally supposed be was taking part in a combined movement. Was be, at the bidding of a party of Yeomanry of whom he knew nothing, to turn back and perhaps sacrifice the result of a great movement? Hon. Members were not competent to pronounce an opinion on such a question; it was a question for military judgment. The court of inquiry reported at Lindley, apparently, adversely to General Colvile, but before that court Colonel Spragge was defendant, not General Colvile; and it appeared to him that the right course to pursue when the court exculpated one man and inculpated another man was to hold another inquiry for trying the other man. But the right hon. Gentleman did not do this; he took the verdict of the court, before which the other man had no chance of appearing, the evidence of which he

1387
did not know—he took that as establishing the case. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman entirely denied the right of General Colvile to establish his defence. If Colonel Spragge had the right to be heard, why not General Colvile? At the court of inquiry his hon. friend said there was the evidence of certain generals whom he named.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that he never mentioned the names of any officers who gave evidence; all he said was that Lord Roberts could have availed himself of the evidence of three distinguished general officers whom he bad mentioned by name.
MR. YERBURGHsaid that if he had in any way misrepresented his hon. friend he apologised. What he would like to know was who were called to give evidence before the court of inquiry, and, after the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham, whether any of the relief column of Lord Methuen were called? Who were the people who gave evidence? They did not know. General Colvile did not know, and he had no means of knowing. He had practically been tried by a court before which he had not appeared. The hon. Member asked the House to understand that he did not wish the hushing up of charges against any officer. Let the charge be openly made, and put the man on his trial. He heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War say the other night that he was in favour of courts-martial. He asked nothing more. Give a court-martial, and that would satisfy every shade of opinion in the House.
*Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: We have heard excellent speeches on both sides of the House, and I am reluctant to intervene in this debate. But there are one or two points to which I should like to call attention. The question of Lindley has been dealt with by the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division in a speech in which he put forward a powerful claim for the trial of General Colvile; and the question of Sanna's Post has been effectively dealt with in the speech to which we have just listened, and also in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Oldham,
1388
in which he gave us his own experience. In reply, I should like to say we are not here engaged on a question of holding a trial upon efficiency. It is a question of holding a trial for alleged inhumanity and callousness shown by a general in the field, who is accused of not going to the relief of others when he had the opportunity of doing so. That is really the charge, and it is upon that we hold that an inquiry should take place. As to the principle of selection, there is no principle that I should adhere to more myself, but this is not a question of selection. General Colvile had been appointed to the command at Gibraltar, having been sent home from South Africa. He was reinstated there by the Commander-in-Chief. There is therefore before us no question of selection. It was for Sanna's Post. I have always heard, that General Colvile was "broke." but the inquiry into that incident has. I believe, been wholly inadequate to enable him to state his defence. It is upon that ground that I maintain a court-martial should have been held. I believe he has never yet had a fair opportunity of stating his case.
I have noticed that everyone who has spoken in the last half-dozen speeches has disclaimed any acquaintance with General Colvile. It seems to be imagined by the Secretary of State for War that hon. Members who have spoken in this case have been hounded on by "smart society" to put pressure on the War Office. I cannot say that myself even know smart society. It is twenty years since I knew General Colvile, when we happened to be brother officers in the same regiment, and all I have seen of the case are two notices in the press—one a statement which seemed to me to bear obvious signs of being an official record of the circumstances under which General Colvile was being recalled from Gibraltar, and the other a statement by General Colvile himself. I thought General Col-vile's statement impermissible. I thought the other statement as to the reason why General Colvile had been recalled from Gibraltar showed a leakage somewhere at the War Office. It would not be difficult to trace where the leakage occurred. I think that was serious provocation to General Colvile, and he also,

1389
suffered considerable provocation in the way he has been dealt with in having been tried and retried for the Lindley case, I am myself entirely against public inquiries into these personal questions. The pledge given by the Government with respect to that was much too wide. I am quite prepared to support the Government it they could, by some more successful means than they adopted the other night, get clear of their pledge. But what I do think a safeguard against public inquiry is to have that system of courts of inquiry and courts-martial which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War so ably described the, other night. A court of inquiry, which is secret, should be held first, to be followed if necessary by a court-martial. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a court-martial might be fatal to an officer, and therefore it was more humane to have a court of inquiry first. What could be more fatal to an officer than the course you have pursued with respect to General Colvile? After having two secret courts on the accused, trying him behind his back, and after refusing him a court-martial, where he could defend himself, it is unfair to tell him that he would have been less well treated if he had been tried by court-martial. We all know General Roberts's kindness of heart. I do not believe there is a kinder hearted man in the world, but to suggest that General Colvile was more likely to gel off easily in the way he has been dealt with than if he had been tried by court-martial is, as I have said, an unfair assumption. These matters should be settled in the Army, by the Army, and by the Army alone. [Cheers.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cheer that, although they have given no opportunity for military trial in this case. I take part in this discussion with great reluctance. I do not know that I have ever undertaken a more distasteful duty than the present one. I think, after the services Lord Roberts has rendered to the Empire at a time of the greatest emergency, there could he no more ungracious task than seeming to dispute a decision at which he has arrived. It is because I believe that I am following the path of justice in this matter that I support the plea of my hon. friend.
1390
There is one matter to which I should like to refer for a moment, and that is the various insinuations made against General Colvile, which from my knowledge of him I do not think fair. The right hon. Gentleman last night said—
"I will say, first, that Lord Wolseley by no means exonerated him when he allowed him to go hack to Gibraltar, Lord Roberts stated that, in his opinion, on two occasions in the Held 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 he fatal to an army in the field. Other circumstances had come to Lord Roberts's notice in which General Colvile's relations with his sub-ordinals 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 have received one or two letters, which I should like to read very shortly, and if I am challenged I shall give the names of the officers by whom they were written, but I shall not mention them unless I am challenged, because I do not consider it desirable to bandy about names here. An officer who was by General Colvile's side in all his hottest engagements during the war has written to him expressing indignation at what has taken place about him in this Reuse. He says—
"If ever there was a libel it was in the word 'inefficiency.' I can only tell you that we and your stall' bad the most absolute confidence in you if it came to a tight place, and I think it will lie allowed that your stall' are the people to judge."
It has been said that there was cowardice on the part of General Colvile, and although my hon. friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire asked about that matter, the charge has not been repeated here. I have heard it in every possible form, and I mention it merely because I think it has very much prejudiced General Colvile's case in the general estimation. An officer who served under General Colvile wrote that every man who had been with him under fire could testify to the absolute absurdity of the charge. Another officer who was with General Colvile at Belmont. Magersfontein, Paardeberg, and Poplar Grove, said he had never hesitated to go where the bullets were flying thickest. He wrote that no one could have been more cool under musketry fire, and he could not

1391
believe that such a base slander could be brought against a brave man. I feel entitled to read these letters. I will only repeat that General Colvile has not had a fair opportunity of defending himself. I cannot see how in a quarter of an hour's interview with Lord Roberts, although I have no doubt the case against him was tersely put, he on his part could have sufficient time to make his defence. I do not dispute for a moment the unrivalled capacity of Lord Roberts and other generals for investigating cases of this kind, but the question is whether they knew all the facts. Both as regards Lindley and Sauna's Post the decisions of the officers who judged the cases were come to on imperfect evidence. General Colvile's removal from the command at Gibraltar was, under the circumstances, wrong. If General Colvile cannot prove his case before a court-martial, let him be disgraced and let him suffer all the penalties you can put upon him. We have endeavoured to give the reasons why he should have a trial. We appeal with confidence to hon. Members. I do not believe that any lover of British fair play can be altogether deaf to this appeal. I am quite aware that this motion is not a thing to be lightly undertaken, but under the circumstances in this case it had to be done, and I therefore cordially support the motion of my hon. friend the Member for North-West Lanark.
The FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and my hon. friend who has spoken on this side of the House in the same sense are animated by nothing but the desire to see what they describe as fair play being carried out in the case of General Colvile. Nothing I shall say in the course of the few remarks I shall address to the House will impugn the motives with which they have acted. I believe those motives to be wholly disinterested; and if I take a different view from that which they take, if I even go the length of saying that the policy which they advocate, if carried out, would impair the functions of this House and destroy the Army, it is not because I in the least question the excellence of their intentions or their desire in this case to see justice done,
1392
quite irrespective of persons or parties What have we been asked to do by several hon. Gentlemen, some of them very good friends of mine on this side of the House, in the course of yesterday's and to-night's debate? We have been asked to constitute ourselves into an amateur court for the purpose of deciding on various difficult and delicate questions of fact. ["No, no."] I hear loud cries of dissent from that view. If that is not true, all I can say is that most of the speech of my hon. friend the Member for the Ince Division, the whole of the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the whole of the speech of my hon. friend the Member for Chester, and the whole of the speech of my hon. friend the Member for Chippenham, though excellent speeches in themselves, were entirely beside the point, because they dealt wholly and solely with questions of strategy.
Mr. LAWSON WALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the notice of motion?
Mr. A.J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to answer the speeches. I shall come to his speech directly. He also joined the crowd of amateur strategists, though he imported into his speech in addition the distinct flavour of the lawyer. I am now dealing with the speeches that have been made, and very excellent speeches they were. I listened with great admiration and pleasure to the speech, among others, of my hon. friend the Member for Chippenham. What was the substance of that speech, excellent though it was? He narrated admirably, as I think, his own experiences over the field of operations. His defence of General Colvile consisted in the demonstration, or attempted demonstration, that when General Colvile refused to attempt to relieve the Yeomanry at Lindley he was forced into that course by strategical and tactical considerations which showed him that, had he attempted the task, he would have attempted the impossible, with the natural result not improbably that he also would have had to surrender with, his brigade in addition to the, Yeomanry who ultimately underwent that disastrous fate. I am sure my hon. friend will not think that I

1393
have misinterpreted the main consideration of the his speech.
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYXDER: I only brought that forward as a point for the defence, and as a case for inquiry.
Mk. A. J. BALFOUR: Precisely; my hon. friend and I are entirely agreed. My hon. friend brings forward these strategical considerations, as other hon. Gentlemen have brought them forward, to show that there was a strong prima facie case which required the intervention of the House, in order that there might be a court-martial or some other form of inquiry. Is that accepted? [Hear, hear.] Very well. Then this House is to resolve itself into a grand jury on questions of strategy, in order to say whether there is—[Cries of "Agreed."] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will allow me to speak. This House is to resolve itself into a grand jury in order to determine whether or not the ease should go to a common jury in the shape of some military court of inquiry which is to reverse or endorse, as it thinks fit, the verdict the Commander-in-Chief has come to. What does that mean? It means that this House of Commons is to be a court of supervision over all questions of promotion in the Army. There have been numberless officers superseded in the way in which General Colvile has been superseded. They have not the means he possessed of bringing their cases before the House. But if General Colvile is to have the right to occupy two nights debate in order to consider whether the Commander-in-Chief is or is not justified in the course which on his responsibility has been adopted, why is this House not to take equal cognisance of the cases of even the humblest of those men who in the ordinary course of promotion have been thought unfit for higher commands and have been superseded by those who were otherwise their juniors? I said just now of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds that, in addition to the position of amateur strategist, which he had adopted in common with many other Members of the House in the course of the debate, he has added to his speech a strong flavour of the lawyer. I said that in no disparagement to the great profession to which he belongs, but in the distinct belief that the hon.
1394
Gentleman, in common with many other Members, has fallen into the extraordinary blunder of supposing that in the action taken in regard to General Colvile there is some analogy, it may be distant, but real, to the action a court of law takes when it condemns a criminal for some offence which he has committed. I think it is conclusive proof that I have not misrepresented the hon. and learned Gentleman when I say he has fallen into this legal blunder. The hon. and learned Gentleman actually suggested the Dreyfus trial as affording some parallel to the action taken by the Commander-in-Chief. What was the Dreyfus trial? Of the merits of it I do not pretend to know anything, but it was a criminal trial for a criminal offence, held before a court recognised by the law, and dealing with a man charged with a breach of trust.
Mr. LAWSON WALTON: Dreyfus was tried for a purely military offence by a purely military court.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say he was not tried by a military court. I said he was tried by a court recognised by the law for a crime, and the crime was treason and betrayal of confidence. I do not know whether these were the technical phrases.
MR. LAWSON WALTON: He was tried as a spy, for communicating military information to the disadvantage of his own country.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the hon. and learned Gentleman is a great authority on criminal matters. I am not. But I should have thought that to betray the secrets of your country to a foreign Power was a crime, and that a man, tried for that before a court recognised as a legal court, was tried for a crime before a court. At any rate, I am trying to make it intelligible to the House. I venture to say there is no analogy whatever, even of the most distant, remote, and shadowy kind, between trying a man either for betrayal of trust or for treason, as was the ease with Captain Dreyfus, and trying a man on a specific charge like cowardice, which may well happen on certain occasions in war; and discretion must surely be vested somewhere in deciding who are competent persons for great military employment. That is the

1395
real point which the hon. Gentleman, misled by his great legal training and position, has entirely failed to see. It is not a question whether General Colvile was guilty of a crime, or could be brought before a court-martial on a specific charge. The question, and the whole question, is whether he showed himself by his action in South Africa to be an officer who ought to be placed in a position of great military responsibility in the Army of this country. And who is to judge of that? Is it to be the Commander-in-Chief, or is it to be the amateur strategists guiding this House? I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, certainly other hon. Gentlemen, pointed out that a case of a sort could be made out for every action that General Colvile took, either in refusing to assist the Yeomanry at Lindley, or in refusing to communicate with General Broadwood, or in refraining from action during all those critical hours after Sanna's Post. Of course. For what action in this world will not somebody be found to find an ingenious excuse if it comes to discussion?
The point, and the only point, we have to determine to-night is this: Are we the best tribunal, or the only tribunal, to discuss military appointments in this country, or ought the responsibility of judging the competence of officers to be left with those who have seen them actually at work, and who know, as only those on the spot can know, whether they have risen to the height of the great responsibility which has been entrusted to them? I should like to ask the House. Do they think that we in this country err by too great severity in our judgment of military officers in the field? Is it our practice to judge too harshly of their performances? Do we allow too little for the inevitable failure which, of course, must occur even to the best officer? Do we attach too small a value to the claims of seniority? Who will answer that series of questions and will not agree with me in saying that if we have erred in the past, if we are likely to err in the future, it is not by excessive severity, but by excessive leniency? Those responsible for the conduct of the war have been denounced in the last eighteen months for the failure of this general, incompetence of that general, folly of this appointment, for the un-
1396
justifiable character of the other appointment. And yet, Sir, as soon as the Commander-in-Chief ventures to touch a man who has at his command some influence with the press or with the House, a storm of indignation rises and a flood of turgid criticism is poured forth which, unless we are prepared to show that, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, it is the Army which is to judge these Army questions, will not only lead this House into an interminable series of profitless debates, but will undermine and destroy the discipline of the Army. Are we to have an Army? That is the real question here. One of the proposals of my right hon. friend the Secretary for War, in his great speech on Friday night, was that at the head of the army corps of this country should be placed only those officers who, in the opinion of competent military judges, were officers who could lead those army corps in the field should the occasion arise. I do not know what criticisms are to be passed on my light hon. friend's scheme as a whole; I will not anticipate them, but this I say, that on that particular part of the scheme no criticism will be passed from any quarter of the House. And yet how is that scheme to have even the shadow of a hope of success if the Commander-in-Chief, after seeing an officer at work, is not to be allowed to pronounce an opinion upon that man's competence for high military office? The thing surely does not bear argument. Gentlemen who support this motion are asking for a trial in a case which is not a case for a trial at all. It is a case in which a judgment of the competence or incompetence of a man can only be reached adequately in military as in private life by an impartial examination into a multitude of details which cannot be embodied in a distinct proposition, which cannot be formulated as charges or excuses, but which, nevertheless, as we all know, are the real grounds upon which we form our estimate of a man's power or incompetence to carry out the duties entrusted to him.
Mr. YERBURGH: I desire to point out that the Lindley judgment is the result of a trial.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend is mistaken. I have really put the case in its true light. My hon. friend the

1397
junior Member for Oldham, in his most able speech to-night, hit the nail exactly on the head when he said that this was a question—to quote a phrase that is sometimes used and sometimes abused—of managing public affairs on business principles. As my hon. friend pointed out, what would the head of a great firm say if the promotion of a subordinate could never take place or never be refused without a formal trial—without the charges being elaborately stated with all the pomp and circumstance of a hearing in a public court? The thing is absurd. That is not the way to judge competence or incompetence. That is the way you punish faults or crimes. But there is no crime alleged against General Colvile. What is alleged against him is that he has shown himself on critical occasions incapable of carrying out the duties which we expect of British generals in high places of command; and the man who has expressed that opinion is the Commander-in-Chief. We have been told by almost every speaker on the other side that the Commander-in-Chief arrived at his judgment without having heard what General Colvile had to say. That is entirely untrue. There is not a vestige of foundation for the statement. General Colvile had every opportunity, both in writing and speech, of bringing before the Commander-in-Chief his view of the military episodes in question.
Mr. DALZIEL: Was he told the charge against him?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already told the House there was no question of a formal charge. The only question is. Was General Colvile a proper man to be put in command at Gibraltar or not [Several Hon. Members: Who put him there?]; and was he—and this point came first—a proper man to be retained in high command in South Africa? Lord Roberts, the only proper and adequate judge of military questions of this kind, having had a full opportunity of hearing General Colvile's statement, decided, in the first place, that General Colvile was not a proper officer to be retained in high command in South Africa; and, in the second place, that the interests of the British Army would not be furthered by retaining him in high command at Gibraltar.
1398
I venture to tell the House very respectfully that we have before us to-night a decision of far wider scope and far greater import than the treatment of any general officer, be he who he may. If the House were to decide, as I do not for a moment anticipate that it will, that the Commander-in-Chief in exercising his discretion in this matter has been guilty of doing an injustice to an inferior, it would not only decide the particular case but it would lay down a permanent rule, governing our Army, that every case of promotion should be reviewed by the House. Every appointment which was not exactly in accord with seniority might be made the occasion of lengthened debate and division. I venture to tell the House that, it they come to a decision like that, the immediate result of disposing of one particular Commander-in-Chief and one particular Government, as they most certainly would dispose of them, would be the smallest and the most insignificant result of so fatal a decision, and they would for ever undermine and destroy the high discipline of the British Army.
Mr. ASQUITH: There is one observation, and one only, in the speech to which the House has just listened, which, I think, will command universal assent, and it is this, that we are not engaged to-night in the discussion of the merits of an individual case; for as regards the bulk of us General Colvile is an absolutely unknown person, in whose fortune and fate we have no reason to take any interest whatever, and the interest which has been evoked by this debate on both sides of the House, and which is amply testified to by the crowded state of our benches, would never have been excited by a purely personal question; but it results from and is the expression of a belief that we are dealing here with a large question of administrative principle. The right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he has read the motion—has strangely misconceived the proposition actually submitted to the House. He has represented it as if it were a question of this House sitting in review as amateur strategists upon a decision of experts on a question of military discipline. If that were the proposition I should be the first to say—and I doubt whether there would he a dissenting voice—that no

1399
more incompetent tribunal could be selected for the review or reversal of a question of military discipline than this House. The parties are not before it, the evidence is not before it, or, at least, it is only before it in a very imperfect and incomplete state. The tribunal itself is constantly shifting. We have not the advantage of the arguments which might be presented in a complete shape by either one side or the other; and just as I have often said, and will always say, that if it were a question, for instance, of reviewing a decision of the Home Secretary in a matter of criminal justice, no tribunal could be less well equipped than this House, so I will say that, if it were a question of reviewing the decision of a military tribunal, we are absolutely incompetent to undertake the task. That is not the case here.
Let me clear away another misconception into which the light hon. Gentleman fell—namely, that the interest which has been excited about this case—the genuine, deep-seated, widespread interest—is the result of some kind of social influence or social pressure exercised in behalf of an officer in high command, which would not have been felt or, at least, manifested in the same degree if it had been a humble officer or a member of the rank and file. Sir, I entirely repudiate that view. I do not care who it is, whether it is a field-marshal, a general, a colonel, or a private, if the House of Commons is satisfied, if prima facie evidence is brought before the House of Commons, that any man in His Majesty's service, whatever be his rank, has been deprived of the opportunity of continuing to serve his country on insufficient evidence, or, what is more important, by a denial of the canons and rules of natural justice, it is the bounden and imperative duty of this House to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman asked the question, Where is the Army? Let me ask another question in return. Where is the House of Commons? This is not a personal matter—a question of General Colvile, of A, B, C, or D—it is a question whether or not in a specific case and upon specific evidence those rules which we always recognise, not as a matter of technical legal procedure but as the expression
1400
of the natural instinct of justice, have in a particular case been observed.
Let us come to the actual case which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with. He referred to the decision of the Commander-in-Chief and the military authorities as regards the promotion or degradation or dismissal of a military officer on military grounds as not a matter with, which this House would lightly or properly interfere. But what is the case before us? We have the case of a general officer—I do not lay any stress upon that—but an officer who admittedly has rendered great service to the Crown during a long and honourable career. In the course of this present war his name has been selected no less than four times by the Commander-in-Chief for special mention on the ground of distinction in the field. That officer comes home. Certain charges are brought against him, which when they are examined resolve themselves into one accusation, in respect of one single incident—namely, the incident at Lindley, because Sauna's Post is an afterthought. [Several Hon. Members: No.] I say deliberately Sanna's Post is an afterthought. [Mr. A. J. Balfour: No.] The right hon. Gentleman says. "No." I will read once more the letter from the Acting Commander-in-Chief, dated Kith December. It is addressed to an officer who had returned to this country in August, whose case had then been examined by the Secretary of State and by the Commander-in-Chief, and who, after the examination of his case by these, the only competent authorities able to pronounce on a matter of military discipline, had been formally reinstated in his command at Gibraltar. Having been at Gibraltar from September, on 16th December this letter is written to' General Colvile—
"The Secretary of State having discussed by telegraph the instance of the surrender of No. 13 Imperial Yeomanry Battalion, concurs with Lord Roberts that you were mainly responsible for the surrender, and he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that you cannot be permitted to retain your command. I am directed to request you to hand in your resignation to General Sir George White on receipt of this and to quit Gibraltar."
What does this mean? There is no allegation of general incompetence, which indeed would be sufficiently refuted by the testimony of the Commander-in-Chief:

1401
there is no allusion to Sauna's Post. That is why I say that Sauna's Post is a pure afterthought, brought in after the event to bolster up a decision. There never was a clearer case in which, upon the authority of the War Office itself, an officer was required to send in his resignation not on general grounds, but on one single and specific ground—namely, the Lindley incident. Is that contradicted? [Several HON. MEMBERS: Yes.] The hon. Member for South Leeds in his admirable and convincing speech earlier in the evening pointed out as a reinforcement, if reinforcement were necessary—and I do not think it was—of that argument that, as lately as 21st February—less than a month ago—in this House the Secretary of State was questioned on this matter. The only incident to which he called attention and on which he based his decision was "the case brought to my notice in December last by the Acting Commander-in-Chief, Sir Evelyn Wood, on receipt of the finding of the court of inquiry into the Lindley disaster." Am I not right therefore? This is not a party question; but I appeal to the general sense of justice in the House when I say that the reversal of the decision deliberately arrived at and authoritatively pronounced by the Secretary of State and by the Commander-in-Chief in August or September last was based entirely—[Several HON. Members: No.] I do not understand that interruption. I have read the letter of the Acting Commander-in-Chief and the answer of the Secretary of State given in the House. It was based entirely and specifically on the Lindley incident alone.
I am not an amateur strategist—I do not know anyone who is. All we have said is that the evidence brought forward is such that in any other case or in any other walk of life it would entitle a man to demand an inquiry. But here is a general officer of great distinction who has taken part in the operations in South Africa. We have had these operations presented to us in the authentic and authoritative account of the campaign since General Colville was superseded in Lord Roberts's despatches describing these events. Some reference has been made to his despatch about Sauna's Post, and I leave it out of the case; but I have read most carefully,
1402
and read with an absolutely open and unprejudiced mind—I must in view of the insinuations which have been made add my disclaimer to the many others which have been put forward—having no kind of knowledge or acquaintance with General Colvile or the persons connected with him—the account given by Lord Roberts of the incident at Lindley. It was written two months after the event. It does not contain one word of censure of General Colvile's proceedings on that occasion. The case of General Colvile is considered by the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief, and all the information we may assume to be then available was brought before these authorities. He was deliberately reinstated in his command. The Secretary of State tells us that in the early days of December he receives the report of a court of inquiry, apparently a second or subsequent court of inquiry, which had been held into the Lindley disaster, and on the strength of the finding of that court, and on that and that alone, this letter is written to General Colvile at Gibraltar.
I ask the House, disregarding technicalities of procedure, to treat this matter as if it were a mere matter between the humblest civil servant and the State which employs him. Here is a man who has been acquitted, who has been reinstated, as to whom, after he has been acquitted and reinstated, a court of inquiry, held behind his back, at which he is not represented, of the evidence of which we have no knowledge whatsoever, for it has never been made public, of the charges preferred at which neither he nor we at this moment have any idea—and this man is told on the strength of the verdict of that court of inquiry that he is to be superseded, without having any opportunity whatsoever either of considering the evidence, of presenting his own case, or of submitting it to the review of any military tribunal whatever. I do not think any man would dismiss a servant on the grounds so stated. I express no opinion whatever, and have no opinion, as to whether General Colvile did or did not perform his duties as a general or an officer, either at Sauna's Post or Lindley; but I do say this—and this is really the only point that interests the House of Commons—that when a general, having

1403
performed ill or well—I care not which—his functions in the field—having been exposed to censure for the manner in which he has performed them, having had that censure carefully discussed, examined, and reviewed by the then only competent authorities in this country, has been reinstated in his post, he ought not, according to the rules of justice, the traditions of fair-play, and the practice which, prevails in every department of life—social, political, or business—in this country, to have that position reversed, that acquittal set aside, and the status into which he has been put taken away from him, without at least some opportunity of answering the new charges and discussing the evidence. That, and that alone, is my view of the issue before the House. It is not a question as to General Colvile or anybody else, it is not a question of military discipline as against the jurisdiction of the House of Commons—it is a question of whether in this specific case a man who has been acquitted upon a charge—[Some HON. MEMBERS: No.]—yes, acquitted in the only way in which a man can be acquitted, because he was reinstated in a position for which he would manifestly have been unfit if that charge had been proved against him—
*MR. BRODRICK: I beg pardon; I stated last night distinctly that he was not exonerated by Lord Wolseley from the charge.
MR. ASQUITH: I suppose there was no verdict, or finding, or anything on paper—if there was, we should be very glad to see it. All we know is what Lord Wolseley did; and if General Colvile was actually responsible either for the disaster at Sanna's Post or for the surrender of the Yeomanry at Lindley—if there was even a prima facie case against him, he ought not to have been reinstated in his command at Gibraltar, and it is the most serious impugnment of the judgment of both Lord Wolseley and Lord Lansdowne. It is not I who am responsible for making it, but those who have succeeded them in office who make this insinuation against them. That is the simple issue before the House. It is not a question of censure or military discipline. It is a question of whether we ought to apply in the administration of the Army those
1404
principles of ordinary and natural justice to which every one of us would conform in the ordinary relations of life. For my part, having the very strongest view that this House is an unfit and incompetent tribunal to revise the decisions of our military authorities, being one of those who would never either in civil or military matters countenance for a moment the establishment of what I conceive to be an unconstitutional and revolutionary practice, and because I think that in the specific circumstances of this particular cases there is prima facie ground to believe that the ordinary rights of justice and fair play have been violated—for that reason only I ask the House to accept the Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): From the very earnest but somewhat vehement speech to which we have just listened, I think it is clear that, in spite of what I thought was the lucid exposition of my right hon. friend, the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not agree as to the issue which is before the House. It is perfectly clear from his speech that we take a totally different view from him as to the matter which is now before us for decision. I was very glad to bear the light hon. Gentleman say that this was in no sense a party question. I hope that is the case, and I hope that the division may show it. But it is a, case which evidently has excited the greatest possible interest in the House, and that, perhaps, is not unnatural, for what is it that is at stake? In the first place, there is the position of a general officer of considerable reputation, of high position in the British Army. It is not his character that is at stake. No charge whatever has been made against that, but it is, no doubt, his competency for high military employment—a matter to him of the most intense concern, and in connection with which there would be always a natural sympathy. But there is something else at stake. There is the character of the Government, so far as we have responsibility for what has taken place; there is the character of the Commander-in-Chief. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Which one?] Let me call the attention of the House to the language which the right

1405
hon. Gentleman has used. He said that if we support the decision of the Commander-in-Chief we are false to the principles of ordinary and natural justice to which we should all conform in our private life. He has said that the incident of Sanna's Post was brought in to bolster up a decision arrived at on different grounds. By whom does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the incident of Sauna's Post was brought in, to use his very strong and offensive language, to bolster up a decision previously taken by the Commander-in-Chief? [An HON. MEMBER: By Brodrick.] The right hon. Gentleman I do not think will say so; at all events, I defy him or his supporters to escape from the logical conclusion to be derived from his winds. It is not my right hon. friend—who has told the House that he has acted upon an opinion given to him by the Commander-in-Chief—it is not he who brought in Sauna's Post to bolster up a, decision previously arrived at, and therefore hon. Members cannot refuse to accept the fact that in this issue which is now presented to the blouse it is not the character of General Colvile, but it is the character of the Commander-in-Chief which is involved. The right hon. Gentleman said no one would dismiss a servant upon such evidence as has been presented in the case of General Colvile.
Mr. ASQUITH: Without giving him an opportunity of being heard.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not touch in the least the point that I am going to make. He was heard—but that is not the point. No one, says the right hon. Gentleman, would dismiss a servant upon such evidence without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Who dismissed him? The Commander-in-Chief. I say that throughout the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—take it from point to point—he asks the House to condemn the present Commander-in-Chief in order to exonerate General Colvile.
I only bring that forward because I want the House to see the importance of the issue. The issue is this. It is independent even of the position of the present Commander-in-Chief. The present Commander-in-Chief was appointed with the full confidence of his countrymen
1406
to his present position, and almost his first executive act is criticised and questioned in this House by hon. Gentlemen who do not like being called amateur strategists, and on a question of military discipline this House is asked to condemn the Commander-in-Chief. As I say, it is not merely a question of the position of the present Commander-in-Chief. Of course the result of such a decision as the right hon. Gentleman asks for must be evident and plain to the House; no man with any respect for himself, no Government with any respect for itself, could submit to such a resolution and continue to hold their office. That is almost a platitude, and, of course, there are Members on the other side, although this is not a party debate, who would not he at all sorry to see that result. But that is a matter of small importance compared with the question how the British Army is in future to be organised and administered. What is the position in which we stood a few days ago, before, this debate was raised I Why, we were being criticised in every paper of the Opposition, and in some of our own papers, for too great leniency, for allowing men to remain in command with the lives of soldiers depending upon their action—allowing them to remain after they had shown incompetency. Incompetency is a matter of opinion, and as long as we have a Commander-in-Chief it is the opinion of the existing Commander-in-Chief, whoever he may be, that we have to accept as the final judgment. If the principle endeavoured to be established by the right hon. Gentleman were accepted by the House, it would not matter which Government was in power or who was Commander-in-Chief—there is no Commander-in-Chief and no Government under those circumstances who would dare to dismiss any officer unless they were prepared to bring against him a charge of positive crime. If cowardice were alleged, if treason were alleged, it would, no doubt, be a simple matter to bring the accused person to trial and to punish him according to his deserts. But, as I have pointed out, incompetency is not a matter which can be brought to trial. Is a court-martial to try whether General Colvile is incompetent? What is a court-martial? It is a court consisting of officers lower in rank than

1407
Lord Roberts, Sir Evelyn Wood, and Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener, Lord Roberts, and Sir Evelyn Wood have pronounced their opinion that General Colvile is not capable and ought not to be again employed in high military office; and we, forsooth, are to institute a court of appeal against the highest administrator's in the Army, a court of appeal of their subordinates. It seems to me it is perfectly absurd, absolutely inconsistent with all the criticism which we have previously heard from the party opposite. I agree with my right hon. friend when he said that, if the House of Commons were to pass a resolution of this kind, it would not only destroy the Government, it would not only secure the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief, but it would destroy the British Army.
MR. DALZIEL: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman reminds me of a cartoon which was issued during the elections, called "Hiding behind Bobs." This was not a party question until the right hon. Gentleman rose to address the House, but he appealed to the supporters of the Government, and declared that if the division were against them it would settle the fate of the Government and of
the Commander-in-Chief. The right hon. Gentleman has no business to make this a party question. The question before the House is not the question of Lord Roberts or of Sir Evelyn Wood. It is whether this House will grant an inquiry into the case of General Colvile. If the decision in his case be right, why are the Government shirking an inquiry? How is it that every unofficial Member who has spoken from the opposite benches has differed as to the reason why General Colvile was dismissed? The hon. Member for Oldham said that the Lindley affair was no charge at all, and that it was for Sauna's Post that General Colvile was dismissed, whereas another hon. Member said that he was dismissed because of the Lindley affair. It seems to me that there is a case for inquiry, and I have no doubt if the House were allowed to exercise its free judgment to-night that it would be in favour of the Amendment. Every soldier has a right to have the opportunity of examining the evidence on which he is convicted, and therefore I will vote for the Amendment of my hon. friend.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 202; Noes, 148. (Division List No. 60.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x

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

Round, James

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

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Meysey-Thompsoh, Sir H. M.

Russell, T. W.

Harris, E. Leverton (Tynem'th

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Harwood, George

Milton, Viscount

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hauts.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Helder, Augustus

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Herman-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Higginbottom, S.W.

Morgan, Dav. J. (Walthamstow

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd

Morrell, George Herbert

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Morris, Hon. Martin H. F.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hope, J. F. (Shef'ld, Brightside

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Skewes-Cox. Thomas

Hoult, Joseph

Mount, William Arthur

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, Favers.

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

Smith, HC (North'mb Tyneside

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Murray, Col. Wyndhsm (Bath)

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

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Myers, William Henry

Spear, John Ward

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Nicholson, William Graham

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Joicey, Sir James

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Slock, James Henry

K ennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stone, James Henry

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Stroyan, John

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Palmer, George Wm, (Reading)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Kimber, Henry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Knowles, Lees

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Thornton, Percy M.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Penn, John

Tollemache, Henry James

Law, Andrew Bonar

Percy, Earl

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Lawrence, William F.

Pilkington, Richard

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Valentia, Viscount

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

Plummer, Walter R.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Lee, Capt AH (Hants. Fareham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pretyman, Ernest George

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Purvis, Robert

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Randles, John S.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

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

Rankin, Sir James

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Basch, Major Frederic Carne

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lowe, Francis William

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'th.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wills, Sir Frederick

Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Renwick, George

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Maconochie, A. W.

Richards, Henry Charles

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Bidley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Majendie, James A. H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Malcolm, Ian

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Markbam, Arthur Basil

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

NOES.

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

Bunton, Sydney Charles

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Caldwell, James

Donelan, Captain A.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Doogan, P. C.

Allan, Charles P. (Glou., Stroud

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Duffy, William J.

Ambrose, Robert

Causton, Richard Knight

Duncan, James H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Cawley, Frederick

Dunn, Sir William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Edwards, Frank

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cogan, Denis J.

Elibank, Master of

Bell, Richard

Colville, John

Emmott, Alfred

Blake, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst.

Boland, John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Brigg, John

Crean, Eugene

Farrell, James Patrick

Broadhurst, Henry

Cramer, William Randal

Fenwick, Charles

Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

Cullinan, J.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dalziel, James Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Field, William

Burke, E. Haviland-

Delany, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Burt, Thomas

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Flynn, James Christopher

1410

1411

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Govern, T.

Roche, John

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Gilhooly, James

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

Soares, Ernest J.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mooney, John J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants)

Grant, Corrie

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Murnaghan, George

Sullivan, Donal

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Murphy, J.

Taylor, Theodore Cook

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Tennant, Harold John

Hammond, John

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

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid

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

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tomkinson, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Holland, William Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tully, Jasper

Hope, John D. (Fife, West)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Wallace, Robert

Horniman, Frederick John

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

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Dowd, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Malley, William

Weir, James Galloway

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Mara, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Kitson, Sir James

Partington, Oswald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

Langley, Batty

Power, Patrick Joseph

Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Priestley, Arthur

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Leamy, Edmund

Reckitt, Harold James

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Levy, Maurice

Reddy, M.

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Charles Douglas and Mr. Gretton.

Lundon, W.

Redmond, Willam (Clare)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
It being after midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Adjourned debate, to be resumed tomorrow.

SUPPLY [28TH FEBRUARY]
Resolutions reported:—
CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  CLASS I.
  1. "That a, Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, 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 the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £"2,500, 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 Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
  1412
  year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."
  4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000, 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 the Expenses of the Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services.
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. TULLYreferred to the various items of additional expenditure in connection with the opening of Parliament, and said that at every stage they would be resisted by Irish Catholics. He also complained that adequate explanations of the sums required for the extension of electric lighting and the additional cost of fuel had not been given by the First Commissioner of Works.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDunderstood that a Committee was to be appointed for the purpose of consider-

  1413
  ing how the accommodation of the House could be best used for the convenience of Members. Notwithstanding this, a sum of £1,900 was included in this Vote for alterations to the residence of the Clerk. It was very strange that such a sum should be put down, and he desired to know exactly how the amount was arrived at, how the money was to be spent, and to what purposes the residence of the late Clerk was to be put. He hoped they would have some more detailed information upon this point. The items in this Vote ought to attract the attention of British Members more than Irish Members, because at the opening of Parliament by the King the Irish Members were not anxious to go to the House of Lords. One of the principal reasons for this was that if the Irish Members had gone to the other House at the opening of Parliament they would have had their ears offended by the very uncalled-for and unnecessary observations made by His Majesty with reference to the religion to which many of them belonged. He could not emphasise too strongly what took place on that occasion, and some arrangement might have been made to ensure that the proceedings between this and the other House might have been conducted in a manner which would not have been suggestive so much of a football scrummage. The Royal Gallery should have been reserved for Members of this House, but it was occupied by a large number of ladies, who no doubt lent an additional charm to the occasion, but who were wrongfully occupying positions belonging to Members of this House. He wished also to call attention to the unsatisfactory way in which this House and the Press Gallery were ventilated. There were portions of the House where the heat was almost unbearable, and where there were draughts which were calculated to give colds to hon. Members. There was an item for furniture in connection with the opening of Parliament under which hundreds and thousands of pounds had been spent, and as a representative of the people of Ireland, who had to pay their share, he objected to this Vote in toto. He hoped this matter would be pressed to a division, for it was a perfectly monstrous thing that after two days and two nights of a long and exciting debate they should be asked to
  1414
  sit there at that late hour to transact the most important business of Parliament. The Government had not the slightest hesitation in devoting two days and two nights to discussing the case of General Colvile, but when the Irish Members attempted to devote a few hours to discussing items of expenditure which affected their constituencies they were closured.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about Irish Votes in this Estimate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid his point was that Votes involving the expenditure of large sums of money should not be brought on at that time of night. [Ministerial interruptions.] He supposed hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to call in the police again, but he could assure deter him in the slightest degree from saying whatever he was inclined to say.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must address himself to the Chair and confine himself to the question before the House.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he knew it was the proper thing to address the Chair, but when he was greeted in a disorderly fashion by hon. Gentlemen opposite he thought he was justified in appealing to the Chair to protect him. He agreed that the Vote did not apply particularly to Ireland, but he maintained that inasmuch as Irish constituencies would be called upon to pay their share of the expense of this new furniture, electric lighting, and the rest of the expenditure incurred in the opening of Parliament, they were entitled to take that opportunity of objecting to the Vote. There was one way in which the First Commissioner of Works could silence him instantly upon this matter—if he would tell him that no part of this expenditure would be asked for from Ireland he would say no more; but as long as he found that the Irish people were asked to pay any share of such money he should always object. So far as he was personally concerned, and as representing his constituents who in their direst misery had appealed time after time for help in vain, he would protest in that

  1415
  House on every occasion against passing a Vote which he considered a wanton piece of extravagance. He recommended the First Commissioner of Works the next time he wanted to make preparations for a show which at the best could last but an hour, to go to a first class circus proprietor, who would do the whole thing at a fourth, of the cost.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that if there was to be a, continuation of the debate the right hon. Gentleman had himself to thank for it on account of the way in which the Estimates had been drawn up and the want of information in regard to them. The only Members of the House who were discharging a most important duty to the taxpayers of the country were those who sat on the Irish benches, who had over and again endeavoured to extract from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of the extraordinary manner in which the Estimates were presented to the House. They objected to this Vote because they had taken no part whatever in the ceremony which attended the opening of Parliament, and because £500 of the total Vote would he levied from Ireland. That might seem to be a trifle, but they must consider the misery and poverty of Ireland under British rule. He was very much surprised that they did not get more help from independent Members in critising the proposals of the Government, who were increasing the taxation by leaps and bounds. He had taken no part in the ceremony. He had stood in the lobby when the representatives rushed past and hardly escaped injury in the scrimmage or the football match—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is a ride against the tedious repetition by a Member of arguments of himself or others. The hon. Member is repeating almost word for word the speeches of the hon. Members who preceded him.
  MR. J. P FARRELLsaid he was not responsible for the utterances of hon. Members who preceded him. He was endeavouring in his own humble way, not perhaps so eloquently or ably as others, to express his opinion on this matter, and really he hoped he would
  1416
  not be out of order in giving expression to what he saw in the lobby of the unseemly rush on that occasion. He complained because the right hon. Gentleman had given them no particulars. They were asked to provide seats for ladies, which were to be paid for by poor women who lived in mud huts and who were looked upon by these ladies as Hottentots—at least they had been taught to believe that by the Prime Minister. They did not protest with bated breath and whispering humbleness, and so long as they were compelled to contribute to this Vote they were quite entitled to discuss every incident connected with that occasion. There was an item for maintenance and repairs. Really the number of doors constantly open and the number of draughts were enough to give every person constant influenza. One might as well be on the top of Croagh Patrici in county Mayo so far as protection from draughts was concerned. He hoped hon. Members would persist in asking for information until it was given.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I will answer, as shortly as I can, the questions addressed to me chiefly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Clare, for the hon. Member who followed him practically repeated his statements. I am sure it is the desire of the House that I should reply in as few words as possible. The chief complaint of hon. Members appears to lie that a large amount of money is asked for under this Vote for the expense of the opening of Parliament by the King in person. If hon. Members will look at the details of the expenditure as stated in the Estimates, they will find that only a comparatively small proportion of the money asked for in the Supplementary Estimate is for that particular service. The first item of £1,900 has nothing whatever to do with the opening of Parliament by the King in person. It is for alterations to the late residence of the Clerk of the Parliaments and improvements to ventilation of committee rooms. I would remind the hon. Member for East Clare that in 1894 a House of Commons Accommodation Committee was appointed by this House, and part of the Report of that

  1417
  Committee was that when the next vacancy occurred the official residence should be taken over by Parliament, and that a certain allocation of the rooms should be made which would free a certain number of rooms to be placed at the disposal of Members. Acting on that Report, I took on myself to ask for the necessary powers to expend money for the purpose of preparing rooms in the official residence for the occupation of Ministers who naturally from their business desired to be located near this Chamber. By that means a certain number of rooms on the Terrace Front will be set free, and will be placed at the disposal of hon. Members. In reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Mayo, I at once promised to reappoint that Committee. The motion appears on the Order Paper, and the reference is wide enough to enable us to deal with the allocation of the rooms to which I have referred, and also to consider the other questions raised by the hon. Member. There is one other matter I wish to mention in reference to the late residence of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Committee of 1894 recommended that further accommodation should be given to gentlemen of the press. They have had very scant accommodation, and we have been able to add considerably to it. I may add that I hope to be able to add more, but I am glad to think, from assurances I have received from the Press Gallery, that my efforts to promote the comfort of gentlemen of the press have not been unsuccessful.
  With regard to the next item, only £300 has been necessitated by the opening of Parliament by the King in person. With reference to the item for the extension of electric lighting to the Royal Gallery, that is not for the supply of electric light on the occasion of the opening of Parliament by the King only. It is for the provision of electric light in the Royal Gallery for whatever purpose it may be used. It was not lighted with electricity before. The next item, "Additional Supply of Electric Current," has nothing to do with the opening of Parliament. It is the extra cost of the electric light used by the House during the interim session and the short meeting of Parliament in January, which could not have been foreseen when the original
  1418
  Estimate was drawn up. The item for furniture is a charge which will not occur again. The opening of Parliament by the Sovereign in full state had not taken place for over forty years, and a largo amount of furniture had to be supplied which can he used on future occasions. With reference to the general question of the unfortunate crush which took place at the opening of Parliament, hon. Members will realise that that is n fault which cannot be placed at my door, or entirely at the door of the Government. The question whether it will lie more convenient to open Parliament in Westminster Hall will, however, be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. The reference is on the Paper, and it is only because hon. Members do not desire to get rid of a grievance that they will not agree to it. If hon. Members will allow the motion to pass the Joint Committee can meet and decide.
  MR. TULLY: I have objected to the Committee because of the insulting references to Catholics in the King's Declaration.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Hon. Members forget that the general convenience of the House would be consulted by the appointment of this Committee. I am quite sure no one would be more anxious that proper accommodation should be provided for the Members of the House of Commons on the opening of the Parliament by the Sovereign than the King himself.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he desired to thank the First Commissioner of Works for his more detailed statement. He would, however, protest against the paying away of money in connection with the opening of Parliament by the King because of the Declaration he then made. It would be remembered that when the Vote was discussed in Committee certain inquiries had been made as regarded the price paid for coal, but no satisfactory answer had yet been given on that point. He hoped that a satisfactory answer would now be given. He submitted that the average price of coal was not higher last year than in the previous year, and the matter should be more fully explained. He wished to

  1419
  know why Government offices generally were paying such a high price for coal? The Vote covered fourteen months—
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The hon. Member is misrepresenting what I said. I said in regard to the other Votes that we were practically taking fourteen months within the year because, whereas we had hitherto paid quarterly, we are now paying pit prices in advance.
  MR. O'MARAsaid the explanation was quite satisfactory, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for it.
  MR. CREANsaid that anyone of experience knew that if they spent £1,900 on alterations nine-tenths of the sum would be lost when portions of the structure were torn down in connection with the general scheme of alterations which was to be carried out. Thus a good deal of this money would be thrown away. It was in many cases to the advantage of the architect to spend as much money as possible. He held that the expenditure of the £1,900 should be postponed until the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed had reported. If money was spent before it was voted, the House should teach the hon. Gentlemen responsible a lesson by making them pay it out of their own pockets. It was an insult to the House to come forward at that hour in the morning [one o'clock] and ask thorn to vote money which had already been spent. He objected to money being voted for work which had been executed without the sanction of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had several times pressed the First Commissioners of Works to restore the crossing which had been taken away, opposite the Clock Tower.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that question did not arise on the Supplementary Estimate now before the House.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he heartily joined his colleagues on the Irish benches in objecting to the Vote of £5,000. He asked the First Commissioner of Works to give more information in regard to the different items in the
  1420
  Estimate. For instance, there was an item of £800 for furniture. Who was the manufacturer of the furniture, was it obtained by tender or otherwise, and was it made in this country, France, or Germany? In regard to fuel, he asked the price paid per ton, and by whom it was supplied. In July last, when coal was at the highest price, why did the right hon. Gentleman enter into a contract for six months, and then, when the price had fallen, why did he enter into a contract for only three months? It seemed to be bad housekeeping. He had received letters congratulating the Irish Members on the action they were taking there in looking after the interests of the ratepayers of Great Britain. They were not there for any pleasure. Personally he might take the liberty of thanking the Speaker for allowing him to enjoy the free breeze of the outside world during the past week.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question before the House is the Supplementary Vote.
  MR. FLAVIN: I did not intend to continue that question except in so far—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not continue it at all. He must address himself to the Vote, or I must ask him to resume his seat.
  MR. FLAVIN: Owing to the stifling atmosphere of this Chamber—
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is no question of the atmosphere of the Chamber in this Vote.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that preceding speakers had been allowed to deal with the question of the ventilation of the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: On looking at the Vote I perceive that there is nothing in it about the ventilation of the House.
  MR. FLAVINsaid the Irish Members were prepared to go into full detail in regard to the various items of the Vote unless the First Commissioner of Works made up his mind to give more information in regard to them. He was not

  1421
  aware that Irish contractors had been asked to supply materials for the Houses of Parliament. He thought that was unfair. Ireland received no benefit directly or indirectly under the Vote, and he therefore deemed it his duty on the

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid 'x

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arrol, Sir William

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Penn, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon Chas. Seale-

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Holder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Maj. KR (Christchurch

  Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwood, James

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brassey, Albert

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renwick, George

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Knowles, Lees

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Sadler, Col. Samuel A.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Lawson, John Grant

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Levy, Maurice

  Smith, H. O. (North'mb., Tynes.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, ColCkarles W. (Evesham

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Spear, John Ward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk.)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John dimming

  Stock, James Henry

  Doxtord, Sir William Theodore

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgn., Gower

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Elibank, Master of

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Middlemore, John T.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Milward, Col. Victor

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbuy

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  NOES.

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, George

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leamy, Edmund

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Field, William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Boland, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Govern, T.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hammond, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Crean, Eugene

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Murphy, J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  first occasion given him since last Tuesday to protest against it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 61.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

  O'Malley, William

  Roche, John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  O'Mara, James

  Sullivan, Donal

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Reddy, M.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Second Resolution:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. TULLYsaid he thought that the House was entitled to a better explanation regarding the Vote than had previously been given. The original Estimate was £6,745, and now a sum of £2,500 was asked for for fuel, light, water, and household articles. The original Estimate for the British Museum was £3,400, and now an increase of £1,450 was asked for. The original Estimate for the Edinburgh Museum was £1,345, and only an additional sum of £100 was required. How was it that the increase in the case of the British Museum was 42 per cent., whereas it was only 7 per cent, in the case of the Edinburgh Museum? It appeared to him that the cost of fuel, light, and household articles must have been as great in Edinburgh as in London. He was aware that the Scotch looked closely after the ready penny, and he thought that the small increase asked for for the Edinburgh Museum was a testimony to the thriftiness of the Scotch people. For the Natural History Museum the original Estimate was £2,000, and the Estimate now required was £2,950, or an increase of 47 per cent. He thought the House should be given some explanation of the increase, and also why, when the Supplementary Estimate for the Edinburgh Museum was only £100 it should be £2,400 for the British Museum? The House had been told that the increase was due principally to the increased price of coal, but surely Scotch cord went up in price proportionately with English coal, and if the Edinburgh authorities could get their coal at a low rate, why could not the same be done

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  in London? The House was entitled to know the names of the contractors from whom the coal was bought, and whether any purchases were made from distinguished Membsers of the Houses of Parliament who were interested in the trade.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDcould not understand by what course of reasoning the First Lord of the Treasury arrived at the conclusion that it was fair or reasonable that the expenditure of public money should be discussed in the early hours of the morning, while the ordinary time of the House was devoted to discussing the more or less interesting case of one officer who was unable to conquer the Boers. In this Vote there was an additional sum of £1,450 for the British Museum in respect of fuel, light, and household articles. He should oppose that and every other Vote in connection with that institution until the First Lord gave an undertaking to restore to Ireland the gold ornaments which were discovered in that country, and taken from them in a most irregular, illegal, and unfair manner, and deposited in the British Museum.
  *MR. SPEAKERruled that the question of the gold ornaments had nothing to do with the Vote before the House, and, therefore, could not be discussed.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDwas about to continue his remarks, when—
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:— Ayes, 123; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 62.)

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Brassey, Albert

  Helder, Augustus

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Carlile, William Walter

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Randles, John S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Renwick, George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm.

  Kimber, Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Knowles, Lees

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lambert, George

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Smith, H.C (N'rthmb. Tyneside

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Spear, John Ward

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stock, James Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, John Throgmortn

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Milward, Col. Victor

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Valentia, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

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

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednes'y.)

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Groves, James Grimble

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

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

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Mdd'x

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Penn, John

  NOES.

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shaughnessy, J. P.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Creanm, Eugene

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Roche, John

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarshire

  Duffy, William J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Elibank, Master of

  Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Tully, Jasper

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Gilhooly, James

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

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid

  Harden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Question put, accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 63.)

  AYES.

  Acland -Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Arrol, Sir William

  Hain, Edward

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Middx

  Penn, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christchch

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

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwood, James

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Brassey, Albert

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Renwiek, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Caldwell, James

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cavendish, V.C. W (Derbyshire

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kimber, Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Knowles, Lees

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Wore'r

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Abel H. (Hereford, E.)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith, HC (Northmb. Tyneside

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Spear, John Ward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Licas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th)

  Stock, James Henry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Camming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriessh.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hope, John D. (Fife, West)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Govern, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Duffy, William J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Roche, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tully, Jasper

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Further Consideration of the Third and Fourth Resolutions deferred till Thursday.

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)—put, and agreed to.

  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes before Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
  PICCADILLY AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  A petition of Messrs. Banter and Company, of 12, Victoria Street, Westminster, parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of the Reverend John Fenwick Kitto, praying 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 on Thursday next, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
    HARPENDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2ª.

    HARROGATE WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order), and dispensed with with respect to a Petition of Leeds Corporation. Leave given to present the said petition.
    AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.].
    CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    CHESTER GAS BILL [H.L.].
    CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    LLANELLY AND MYNYDD MAWR RAILWAY HILL [H.L.].
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) GAS BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.].
    Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    BATH GAS LIGHT AND COKE BILL [H.L.].
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD GAS BILL [H.L.].
    NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [H.L.].
    SHREWSRURY GAS BILL [H.L.].
    Committed.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    GOLD COAST.
    Correspondence relating to the Ashanti War, 1900.
    COLONIES (ANNUAL).
    No. 317. Jamaica, Report for 1899–1900.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES). No. 2560. Spain (1899).
    BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
    Forty-sixth Annual Report by the Registrar General in Scotland, for the year 1900; and Thirty-sixth Annual Report on Vaccination.

    ARMY.
    Correspondence relative to the recall of Lieut.-General Sir H. E. Colvile, K.C.M.G., C.B.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PIERS AND HARROUR ACTS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS, SESSION 1901).
    Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, Amendment Act.

    PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 AND 1890.
    Order in Council, dated 7th March, 1901, approving of a regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    *The SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, the circumstances under which this Bill is presented to the House are these: So long ago as 1692 Greenlaw was made the head burgh of the county of Berwick by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. About fifty years ago that was so far altered that ordinary courts are allowed to be held at Duns as well as at Greenlaw; but small debt courts and criminal cases tried by jury are kept at Greenlaw, and also at that place there are kept all the county records. The distribution of jurisdiction has been felt to be a great inconvenience. Duns is now much more accessible than Greenlaw by modern methods of communication, and is also a more important town. It is proposed, therefore, to transfer to Duns the records and all the Sheriff Court business, and to give it the status of head burgh. I believe there is no opposition to the Bill. It is, I know, supported by the county council, and I hope your Lordships will agree to pass it.
    Moved, "That the Bill be read a second time."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
    On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

    CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
    Report from the Committee of Selection proposing that the Lords following form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House 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).

    Considered (according to order) and agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.