Sitting of 25 March 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CROMER WATER BILL.
  Read a second time and committed.
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Berwickshire County Town Bill [Lords], with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Long.)
  WOLVERHAMPTON AND CANNOCK CHASE RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 2).
  Colonel H. F. Bowles reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills, that, there being no business ready for their consideration, they had adjourned until Wednesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Alderton; and Ebrington; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from Little Berkhampstead, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Chaloner; Tibshelf; Boosbeck; Upleatham; Lumpsey; Loftus; Carlin How; Guisborough; Liverton; and Lingdale; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Croydon; and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Birkenhead; and Northfleet; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Rotherham (two); Carlin How; Lumpsey; Loftus; Guisborough; Chaloner; Boosbeck (two); Liverton; Upleatham; Lingdale; Tibshelf; and Carhouse (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN RILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Bootle (twenty-nine); Aintree(two); Walton on the Hill (four); Battersea; Litherland; Battersea Rise; Bedfordshire; Horsham; Islington; Mexborough; Nottingham; Ramsgate (two); Bristol (twenty-three); Faygate; Manchester; Gravesend; Bow; Easton; Edinburgh; Fauldhouse; Hull; Cemmaes (two); Sheffield; Alexandria; Crawley; Wolverhampton; Wigan (six); Horfield; Brunswicke; Cardross; Little Stonegate; London (two); Worcester; West Bristol; and Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Pulteneytown; Loch Leven; Lochore; Uphall; Armadale; Dundee; Garioch; Glasgow; Weem; Law; Anstruther Wester; and Dumbarton; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Petition of John Xavier Merriman and Jacobus Wilhelmus Sauer, for leave to be heard on the question of future policy; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petition from Peden's Stone, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Return [presented 23rd March]; to be printed. [No. 98.]

  EXPLOSIONS (FELT HAT WORKS, DENTON, NEAR MANCHESTER).
  Copy presented, of Report by Captain J. H. Thomson, R. A., His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, and H. S.
  1082
  Richmond, Esq., His Majesty's Super-intending Inspector of Factories, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances and probable causes of the Explosion which occurred at the Felt Hat Works of Messrs. Joseph Wilson and Sons, Denton, near Manchester, on the 14th January, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNITED STATES (No. 1, 1901).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting the Convention signed at Washington, 5th February, 1900, relative to the Establishment of a Communication by Ship Canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2565 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1828 AND 1888.
  Copy presented, of Special Report by the Board of Trade under Section I of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888 St. Marylebone Electric Lighting (No. 2) Order, 1901] [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Revised Regulations of the 21st March, 1901, as to Certificates of Age, Proficiency, and School Attendance [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Soane's Museum.—Copy of Statement of the funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1901 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—EXECUTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BY BOERS.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government have received official information to the effect that four British

    1083
    subjects who had been made prisoners by the Boers, two of them named Theunissen, one M'Lachlan, and one Boyd, after being brutally treated, were taken out of goal at Wolmaranstad and publicly shot to death one by one by order of Generals Delarey and Smuts; and whether it is known on what grounds this execution took place.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have received the following telegram from Lord Kitchener—
    "M'Lachlan and Boyd, believed to be British subjects, and three burghers, Mathisen, Theunissen and Ahrens, were tried at Wolmaranstad on charge of high treason by the Boers, and shot on 23rd February."
    I have no further information.

    TAAIBOSCH TRAIN WRECKERS.
    *MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the three men shot at De Aar on the 19th instant by sentence of a military court, confirmed by Lord Kitchener, for alleged treason and murder in connection with the wrecking of a train near Taaibosch, and the two men who were sentenced by the same military court to five years penal servitude for the same alleged offence, were thus punished in connection with the wrecking of a coal train near Taaibosch on Monday, 18th February, which train was also carrying Kaffirs, horses, and men of the 29th Imperial Yeomanry Company; whether any one or more of these men were among the eight Boer prisoners of war reported to have been taken by the rescuing force on that occasion; whether any one or more of them were local Dutch farmers who had failed to give warning of the contemplated train-wrecking to the British military authorities; whether any evidence was produced to show that they could have otherwise prevented the train-wrecking; and whether the proceedings of the military court are on record, and can be produced for the information of this House.
    *MR. BRODRICK: I have no further information beyond what I gave the I hon. Member last Friday†
    † See page 847.
    MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can possibly give me a straight answer to a straight question?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a very improper observation to make.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And a very unreasonable thing to expect.

    LINDLEY SURRENDER.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the letter of the War Office, dated 16th December, 1900, demanding General Colvile's resignation, alleged that General Colvile was mainly responsible for the surrender of the Yeomanry at Lindley; and whether that allegation is borne out by the finding of the Court of Inquiry into that surrender.
    *MR. BRODRICK: The War Office letter alluded to stated that "the Secretary of State having discussed the incidents of the surrender of No. 13 Imperial Yeomanry battalion, concurs with Lord Roberts that you were mainly responsible for the surrender." The Court of Inquiry absolved Colonel Spragge from any blame —General Colvile was held responsible by his military superiors for not attempting his relief.
    MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    *MR. BRODRICK: I have done so. The Court of Inquiry found that Colonel Spragge had done all in his power, and laid the responsibility on other shoulders.
    MR. DILLON: But what about the men who raised the flags of surrender?

    PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
    MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the negotiations between Commandant Louis Botha and Lord Kitchener, if he will cause inquiry to be made from the Boer general as to the terms which his Government consider

    1085
    essential to bring about the termination of the war, more especially as in Lord Kitchener's opinion Botha is anxious to bring about peace; and whether he will procure and lay upon the Table of the House the copy of the letter from Commandant Botha referred to by Lord Kitchener as having been brought to him through Mrs. L. Botha, on the 23rd ult.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The answer to the first paragraph is, No, Sir. In reply to the second I have to say that I have telegraphed to South Africa for the text of this letter, and will consider whether it can be laid on the Table of the House.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether if General Botha desires to give his version of the conversation between him and Lord Kitchener in reference to the terms of peace, he will afford facilities for its transmission by telegraph or otherwise to this country in its complete form and without delay.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a hypothetical question, and I cannot answer till the circumstances contemplated in it have actually arisen.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask if it is a fact that Lord Kitchener has given one version of the conversation, and that possibly there is a second one, and does not that supply to the right hon. Gentleman's mind sufficient reason—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has said that he cannot give an answer to the question.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: He does not want to. But I will put it down again.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say whether Mrs. Botha went to meet her husband on the occasion of the recent negotiations for peace of her own motion; and, if not, at whose suggestion.
    MR. BRODRICK: Mrs. Botha went to meet her husband at his request.
    *MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what date the letter (No. 10) (in Paper Cd. 528) was sent by Lord Kitchener to Commandant Louis Botha, and what was the date of the reply (No. 11).
    MR. BRODRICK: The letter from Lord Kitchener was sent on the 7th March; the reply from Commandant General Botha was received on the 16th March; I do not know on what date it was despatched.

    ASSISTANCE TO BOER FARMERS AFTER THE WAR.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to the Peace negotiations in South Africa, if he will withdraw the words "by loan" in reference to the assistance proposed to be given to the Boer farmers, in view of the fact that both Sir Alfred Milner and Lord Kitchener have expressed disapproval of those words, considering them likely to interfere with the success of the negotiations.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The negotiations are closed, and His Majesty's Government adheres entirely to the views it has expressed on this subject.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that in respect of these conditions there is a great difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Alfred Milner, and Lord Kitchener, these negotiations will be opened again with a view to settlement.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the great difference which the hon. Member supposes to exist, but in any case there is no intention of reopening the negotiations.
    MR. PIRIE: How long will this intention remain?
    [No reply was given.]

    PLAGUE IN CAPE COLONY.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary

    1087
    of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the gravity of the outbreak of plague in Cape Colony and the number of persons who are now travelling backwards and forwards between the Cape and this country, he will ask the authorities at Cape Town to furnish weekly Returns of the number of cases and deaths among whites, negroes, Indians, and Malays; of the localities in which the disease is prevalent; and of the number of cases and deaths among the military forces in South Africa.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have asked the Governor to invite the Cape Ministers to send a weekly Return in the form desired by the hon. Member.

    REPATRIATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN REFUGEES.
    MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that many former inhabitants of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, being British subjects, have been ruined in the course of the war in South Africa, and that in many cases their wives and families have come to this country while they themselves are serving in Colonial regiments in South Africa, he will consider the possibility of sending such refugee families back to South Africa at the conclusion of the war at this country's expense.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not give any pledge on behalf of His Majesty's Government, but I should be prepared when the war is over to consider any individual case such as is described by the hon. Member on its merits, and in connection with any petitions for repatriation that may exist at the time.

    BOER PRISONERS—SUGGESTED SETTLEMENTS IN CANADA AND AUSTRALIA.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the suggestion of General Ian Hamilton that some of the Boer prisoners of war at St. Helena should be afforded an opportunity of engaging in agriculture in Canada, and, in the event of that Government or the Commonwealth of
    1088
    Australia or New Zealand being willing to receive some of these men, if His Majesty's Government will consider the question, having regard to the absence of any occupation for them in St. Helena; and whether, in such event, upon the conclusion of peace, the Government will consider the issue of a grant equivalent to the estimated value of the passage to South Africa, and the re-establishment upon their farms of any Boers willing to settle in such British colonies.
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not think it possible to enlarge these prisoners pending terms of peace being arranged.

    WAR DESPATCHES.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any written despatches have been received from the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa since Lord Roberts's despatch of 15th November, 1900; and, if so, whether, in view of the meagre character of the telegraphic despatches and the censorship of extra-official sources of information, these despatches will be published before the debate on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. BRODRICK: No despatches have been received.
    MR. BLACK: Will the right hon. Gentleman wire to Lord Kitchener requesting despatches as soon as possible?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no doubt that Lord Kitchener will send the despatches as soon as he finds it desirable.

    VOLUNTEERS FOR THE FRONT— DRILL ARRANGEMENTS.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if all the Volunteers and Yeomanry who have volunteered for service in South Africa have been drilled and trained after joining at their depots before embarkation by officers who have had experience of South African warfare.
    MR. BRODRICK: There is no information to show this. At some few depots, there are officers with South African experience, but the majority of such

    1089
    officers are at present either in South Africa or at home sick.

    ST. JOHN'S AMBULANCE BRIGADE—PENSIONS.
    MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a pension will be granted to the widow of Private J. Maddocks. No. 544. St. John's Ambulance Brigade, who, after long service with Lord Methuen's Field Force, died at Mafeking on the 18th January.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The widow in question has been awarded a pension of 5s. a week with 1s. 6d. a week for her child, and a gratuity of £5 by the Patriotic Fund. The question of how such cases should be further dealt with is now under consideration.

    CANADIAN HORSES FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
    *MR. GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies will he explain in what way the winter climate of Canada interferes with the purchase and transportation of horses for the war in South Africa; will he also say how Canadian horses have borne the change of climate; and whether horses purchased in Australia or the Southern States of the United States have proved of better service to the authorities.
    LORD STANLEY: The severe weather in Canada during certain months causes horses to get out of condition, and also renders railway transport difficult. So far as information is available Canadian horses which have reached South Africa have borne the change of climate well, but there have been very heavy losses in some cargoes in passing through the tropics at this period of the year.

    ROYAL RESERVE REGIMENTS.
    MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the total strength of the Royal Reserve Regiments on 1st March, and how many of these troops have volunteered for the garrison battalions in the Mediterranean and elsewhere.
    LORD STANLEY: The Royal Reserve Infantry battalions approximately numbered 17,500 non-commissioned officers and men on the 1st of March. About 1,000 have enlisted into the garrison regiment up to date.

    OFFICERS' HALF PAY AND RETIRED PAY DECLARATIONS.
    MR. STOPFORD-SACKVILLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that inconvenience and delay may be caused to officers in receipt of half-pay or retired pay by the necessity of their declarations being attested by specified persons according to existing regulations, he will consider the desirability of allowing agents or bankers to give the necessary certificates of their clients being alive, according to the practice which prevails for analogous claims in the Indian Army.
    LORD STANLEY: Such declarations are required by the Appropriation Act. I will consider the question further.

    VOLUNTEER REGIMENTAL SERGEANT-MAJORS.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why regimental sergeant-majors of Volunteers are refused the rank of warrant officer, when this rank is granted to regimental sergeant-majors of Militia and Yeomanry, whose duties are lighter and less continuous.
    LORD STANLEY: The Secretary of State will consider this matter again, but it has not been hitherto deemed that the duties of sergeant-majors of Volunteers entitle them to warrant rank.

    MILTTIA DISEMBODIMENTS.
    SIR GEORGE FARDELL (Paddington, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain why regiments of Militia which were embodied in November or December, 1899, have not been disembodied in preference to those regiments which were embodied some-months later, some of which have been already disembodied; having regard to the statement made in the House on 7th August last by the then Under Secretary of State for War that battalions first

    1091
    embodied would have a strong claim to be first released.
    LORD STANLEY: Before the disembodiment referred to, the wishes of the various units were ascertained through the General Officers Commanding. Those units accordingly who wished to be disembodied were disembodied, and the services of those who did not press for disembodiment were retained.

    MILITIA OFFICERS' PROMOTIONS.
    SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if officers of Militia over fifteen years service, seconded from the Militia to enable them to serve in the Regular Army, who are also captains in the reserve of officers, will be promoted on completion of their service in the Army so as to entitle them to rank as field officers in the Reserve.
    LORD STANLEY: There is no intention of promoting any particular category of officers en bloc. Individual cases of specially good service rendered will be considered on their merits.

    COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN INDIA.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Sir Power Palmer has been appointed Commander-in-Chief for India for the space of a year and a half only; and whether this is the usual period, and if not, why has any alteration been made.
    MR. BRODRICK: It has been decided to continue Sir Power Palmer, who as senior officer in command took over the post of Commander-in-Chief in India provisionally, on the death of Sir W. Lockhart on 18th March, 1900, to make up a period of two years dating from 19th March, 1900. The usual term of the appointment has been for five years. It is not considered desirable to extend Sir Power Palmer's appointment beyond the time mentioned.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Was this appointment made solely to keep the place for Lord Kitchener?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    ARMY EXAMINATIONS—FRENCH SYNTAX.
    MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the decree concerning the teaching of French syntax, issued by the French Minister of Education, dated 31st July, 1900; and whether he will cause the rules for examination therein laid down to be adopted in the examinations in the French language for the English Army.
    LORD STANLEY: The Secretary of State will consider this matter in consultation with those engaged in the teaching of French at our military academies.
    MR. PIERPOINT: Will the advisers of the Secretary of State be the examiners or independent persons?
    LORD STANLEY: I cannot say.

    CANTEEN BANKERS—CURY'S BANK GIBRALTAR.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the canteen and other regimental losses at Gibraltar owing to the stoppage of payment of Cuby's Bank; whether be is aware that this bank was a semi-private one, kept by a man well known to belong to the class of money-lenders as distinct from that of bankers, and that regimental funds had been allowed to accumulate balances at the bank in excess of the regulations, one battalion losing upwards of £1,000 in canteen and sergeants' mess funds, and another £900; whether one sergeants' mess requested leave to remove its money from the bank, and was refused, and if so, can he explain why, and whether he can state the total loss of regimental moneys; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to responsibility in the matter.
    LORD STANLEY: The bank referred to is, I presume, that of Messrs. Cuby and Son. My attention has been drawn to the case and a thorough inquiry is being made into it.

    ARMY ESTABLISHMENT BEFORE THE WAR.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what were the

    1093
    numbers of regular soldiers in this country immediately before the South African War over the age of 20, and with one year's service; under the age of twenty, and with less than one year's service; reservists; also, what were the total numbers in each class belonging to the British Army.
    LORD STANLEY: The numbers of the rank and file on the 1st October, 1899, were as follow:—

    At home.

    Under 1 year's service

    28,245

    Over 1 year's service

    65,072

    Under 20 years of age

    28,183

    Over 20 years of age

    65,134

    Reservists

    81,163

    Total in British Army.

    Under 1 year's service

    30,302

    Over 1 year's service

    168,487

    Under 20 years of age

    32,663

    Over 20 years of age

    166,120

    The sergeants, drummers, and trumpeters are not classified as above, but amounted to 9,735 at home and 18,253 in all.

    MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
    COLONEL BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session a Bill to amend and? extend the provisions of the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897; or otherwise to ask for increased facilities for the training and instruction, on a large scale, of the troops in the United Kingdom.
    MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir; I hope to introduce a Bill amending the Manœuvres Act.

    ARMY SCHOOLS—DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the names of the members of the Departmental Committee on the Conditions of Service in Army Schools; what are the terms of the reference to the Committee; and will the question of compulsion to wear uniform when off duty be considered.
    LORD STANLEY: The representative of the Treasury is Mr. T. L. Heath. The representative of the Board of Education has not yet been selected. Those of the War Department are Colonel Yates, A.A.G., Woolwich, and Mr. Higgins, Deputy Accountant General. The terms of reference are to examine the proposals for improving the tuition of pupil teachers at Duke of York's School and Royal Hibernian Military School, and to advise generally on the mode of training and remunerating Army schoolmasters and of inspecting Army schools; also to consider the necessity of an increase of the establishment. The Committee will, doubtless, not lose sight of the hon. Member's suggestion on the subject of uniform.

    QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL— TREATMENT OF SCOTTISH VOLUNTEERS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the nature of the food and accommodation which was provided for Volunteers of the 1st Seaforth, Argyll and Sutherland, and Gordons on their arrival at King's Cross early on the morning of the 2nd February, and also during the hours they were in London by invitation of the War Office to take part in the funeral ceremonies of the late Queen; and will he say whether any dinner or other substantial meal was provided for these Volunteers; and, if so, where it was served.
    LORD STANLEY: The food supplied to these Volunteers was the same as that supplied to the whole of the troops, and was as follows:—Breakfast—Bread and butter, sandwiches, sausage or ham, and tea. Dinner—A large meat pie, bread and cheese, and a pint of beer or a bottle of minerals per man. The Cordons and Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders had both meals in the London Scottish drill hall. The Seaforths had their dinner there, and their breakfast at the King's Cross goods shed.
    MR. WEIR: Is the noble Lord aware that these men had nothing but stale dry bread and cold tea?
    LORD STANLEY: That is not my information.
    MR. WEIR: Then the noble Lord's information is inaccurate.

    QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL— DETAILS OE COST.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that in the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates there is a charge of £35,000 for expenses of the funeral of Her late Majesty, out of which the War Office claims £15,000 for travelling expenses, food, and accommodation for troops, will he state how much of this sum was expended in connection with the Volunteers from Scotland who attended the funeral at the invitation of the War Office.
    LORD STANLEY: The cost was estimated at £1,400. I cannot give the exact expenditure on each corps without going into details, the interest of which would not justify the labour of their collection.

    NAVAL SHIPWRIGHT RATINGS.
    MR. GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that at the naval ports there is a deficiency in the naval shipwright ratings, and seeing that the present pay is inferior to the rate of wages in the dockyards or private shipbuilding firms, whether he can state what additional inducements, if any, are being offered to obtain shipwrights.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): No additional inducements are being offered. A large number of boys are being trained in H.M. dockyards to serve as shipwrights in the Fleet, a plan which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, will enable them to obtain all the shipwrights they require.

    CROMARTY FIRTH.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is anchorage for His Majesty's Fleet in Cromarty Firth opposite the towns of Invergordon and Cromarty, Ross-shire; and will the First Lord confer with the Secretary of State for War as to the expediency of fortifying the two headlands known as the Sutors at the entrance to the firth.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question on 14th December last by the Civil Lord.† It is impossible to consider the cases of particular harbours apart from the general question.
    Mr. WEIR: But has it not been promised that the First Lord will confer with the Secretary of State for War?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is the statement in the question. My reply is that we must treat the question as a whole and not merely as relating to Cromarty Firth.

    NAVAL ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.
    MR. LEAMY (Kildare, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say on how many occasions since the year 1878 a Roman Catholic chaplain has accompanied a squadron of the Navy, in accordance with the Admiralty minute of that year.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No Roman Catholic priest has accompanied a squadron, the occasion required by the Minute referred to not having arisen. On two occasions Roman Catholic priests have been specially appointed to minister to squadrons, namely, at Crete in 1898, and in the North of China last year.

    COLONIAL CUSTOMS TARIFFS.
    MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is prepared to enter into communications with the Colonial Governments with a view to induce them to adopt the customs tariff of the United Kingdom, so that British and Irish goods will be allowed to enter their colonies on the same customs tariff as applies to goods entering the United Kingdom, or, failing this, to induce those Colonial Governments who have not done so to adopt a preferential tariff for British and Irish goods, as is done by the Canadian Government.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to enter into such communica-
    † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxviii., page 836.

    1097
    tions as the hon. Member describes. It is, in my opinion, essential to the success of movements of this nature that the initiative should come from the colonies themselves.

    CHINA—ANGLO-RUSSIAN DISPUTE AT TIENTSIN.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state by whom, and at what date, the Russian concession at Tientsin was granted; whether it is a concession to the Russian Government itself; and whether its area includes a portion of the railway line which is mortgaged to British subjects as security for the Chinese Imperial railway loan.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): On the 31st of December Li Hung Chang signed an agreement granting to the, Russian Government as a concession a considerable tract of land of which the Russian military authorities had previously announced themselves possessed by right of conquest. His Majesty's Government are not aware under what authority Li Hung Chang signed the agreement. In answer to the third paragraph, it appears that the concession includes property in the occupation of the Chinese Railway Administration, but at present it is not possible to be more precise. I may add that we have declared that the vaidity of the concession and of proprietary rights within it must be reserved for future examination. Count Lamsdorff made a proposal to the same effect to Sir C. Scott on the 20th instant.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Am I to take it that the date previously given was not correct?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think that the answer just given may be taken to be an accurate statement so far as we are aware.

    ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT AND MANCHURIA.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon, I beg to ask the Under
    1098
    Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government accepts the view of His Majesty's Government that the Anglo-German Agreement applies to Manchuria as well as to China proper.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have no information on this subject other than that already at the disposal of the public.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the statement, publicly made, that the German Chancellor has declared that the Agreement does not apply, the Government will take steps to ascertain whether the German Chancellor made that statement, and whether it is true?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put that question on the Paper, I will endeavour to answer it.

    RUSSIA AND MANCHURIA.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government have presented to the Government of China a somewhat modified form of the agreement signed between the Russian and Chinese local representatives at Port Arthur; whether this last agreement reserves for Russia exclusive privileges in regard to all mines, railways, and industrial developments in Manchuria, and binds China to construct a railway from the Trans-Siberian Railway to the Great Wall, such railway to be under Russian military guardianship; and whether Russia has withdrawn from the so-called Concert of Europe.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: We understand that the terms of the proposed agreement are still under discussion, and I am unable to make any positive statement on the subject. The Russian Government have informed us that they have no intention of withdrawing from co-operation with the other Powers in the affairs of China.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Do the other Powers accept the principle

    1099
    that the agreement should be made behind their backs?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am afraid that that is a question of which I must ask for notice.

    ALLEGED LOOTING IN CHINA.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can now say whether despatches of General Gaselee, with reference to looting and pillage in China, will be laid upon the Table.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have looked at this despatch since the hon. Gentleman put his last question to me on this subject, and I do not think that it can be published.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Why not?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: Because it concerns the acts of troops other than those under General Gaselec's command. As far as I know, no allegation has been made against the conduct of our troops. But if the hon. Member can supply me with any particular allegation I will telegraph to General Gaselee, and any reply that may be received I will give.

    SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR AND PEMBA.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps can be taken to expedite the emancipation of slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: As a result of various causes, including emancipation, it is estimated by the best authorities that there are in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba only half as many slaves as were believed to exist in 1897. It is the opinion of those of our officials who are qualified to judge, and it is believed I that the representatives of the missionary societies on the spot share the view, that further abolitionist measures would not be necessary. His Majesty's Government would be glad to consider any suggestions which may be made with a view of facilitating emancipation.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: But are there not 50,000 slaves still there?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: About that number.

    KOREA.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that Mr. M'Leavy Brown has been dismissed from the post of Director General of Customs in Korea, and, if so, what are the grounds of dismissal.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: A difficulty has arisen in regard to Mr. M'Leavy Brown, Director General of Customs in Korea, but it would be premature to make any detailed statement on the subject.

    PROPOSED IMPORT DUTY ON STEEL.
    MR. FITZALAN HOPE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the formation of the American Steel Trust, the threatened increase in the German steel duties, and the need for raising fresh revenue to meet the growing expenditure of the country, he will consider the advisability of submitting proposals to the House for a substantial import duty on foreign steel.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I can only say to the hon. Member, what I say to the numerous correspondents who offer me suggestions for raising revenue, that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he is not prepared to consider this suggestion?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Oh, I have been considering a great many things.

    MERTHYR TYDVIL STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence that has passed between himself, the

    1101
    stipendiary magistrate for Merthyr Tydvil, and the justices of the peace for the division of Caerphilly Higher, in the county of Glamorgan; and if he can state the relative position and authority of a stipendiary and local justices in cases coming before them upon which they are not agreed; and whether the decision of the stipendiary overrides the opinion of any number of lay justices sitting with him in petty session.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): A stipendiary magistrate when sitting with other magistrates acts as chairman, and, of course, in view of his position and legal acquirements, his opinion carries great weight, but I am advised that he has not in point of law any power to override the decision of a majority of the justices sitting with him. I do not think that any good purpose would be served by laying the correspondence referred to on the Table.

    BREWERS' LICENCES RETURNS.
    MR. JEFFREYS(Hampshire, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the Brewers' Licences Returns the number of brewers mentioned in the first column of Part III., under the heading of persons licensed, could be divided into two classes, namely, those who use malt only, and those who use malt with substitutes for same, and the amounts of materials used by each class be returned separately instead of combined as is now the case; and whether the actual quantity of bulk barrels of beer made by each and every class could be added to the Returns.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The change desired by my hon. friend shall be made in future Returns. It cannot be made in the Return for the year ended 30th September last, as that is already practically ready for printing.

    BRITISH WHEAT AVERAGES.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the mean price of the 4lb. loaf and the Gazette price of British wheat in the first week in March in 1900 and 1901 respectively.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The average Gazette price of British wheat per quarter in the first week of March, 1901, was 25s. 11d., and in the first week of March, 1900, 26s. 4d. There is no officially ascertained price of bread, but returns made to the Board of Trade by over 300 co-operative societies in Great Britain show that the mean price of the 41b. loaves sold by them at the beginning of March, 1901, was 5⅛d., and at the beginning of March, 1900, 4⅞d.

    SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM— BUCKLAND FISH COLLECTION.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to make any statement in reference to the ultimate destination of the Buckland Fish Collection at South Kensington.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

    PETERHEAD AND HOLYHEAD HARBOURS.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total of the Government grants to Peterhead Harbour, also the total of the Government grants to Holyhead Harbour.
    MR. GEEALD BALFOUR: The total expenditure upon Holyhead Harbour from the year 1855 to the 31st March, 1900, was £ 1,611,360. As regards Peterhead Harbour, I am informed by the Admiralty that the total of the Government grants to the Harbour works from their commencement in 1885–1886 to 1900–1901, both inclusive, amounts to £426,360, and that the expenditure during that period has been £398,000.

    HECKMONDWIKE SCHOOL OF SCIENCE.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Board of Education have ordered that fees must be charged at the Heckmondwike School of Science; whether this decision was taken on the complaint of the Dewsbury Grammar School authorities; and, seeing that the Heckmondwike Science School is under the admini-

    1103
    stration of a Technical Instruction Committee and receiving aid from moneys devoted to technical instruction, whether this requirement to charge fees is allowable under existing regulations of the Science and Art Branch of the Board of Education.
    *THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The decision was taken after local inquiry, and is in accordance with Clause VI. of the Directory of the Board of Education.
    MR. YOXALLwas understood to ask if a charge on the local rates was not the alternative to fees; and, getting no answer, to give notice that he would raise the question on the Estimates.

    TRAINING COLLEGES.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a Board of Education Committee on training colleges has been appointed; who are the members of this Committee, if appointed; and what are the terms of reference to it; and will the Committee consider the lack of training college accommodation, with a view to reporting upon advisable measures of remedy.
    *SIR J. GORST: No Committee on training colleges has been appointed. But a Committee is suggesting to the Board of Education courses of study desirable for candidates for certificates. It is not usual to publish the names of such Committees nor the terms of reference, which are not formal. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

    IRISH DRIFT SURVEY.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is intended to utilise the Geological Survey of Ireland in issuing the Drift Survey, and when it may be expected; whether it is intended to commence the Soil Survey of Ireland, and whether it will be conducted under the Irish Agricultural Department; and whether a
    1104
    sufficient grant and competent staff will be provided to enable its being properly carried out.
    *SIR J. GORST: The question of the Drift Survey is, as I have already stated, under the consideration of the Board of Education. The question of a Soil Survey is one for the Irish Agricultural Department, not for the Board of Education, which has to do with geological surveys only. The last question does not arise.

    BOARD SCHOOL SITES IN THE TOWER HAMLETS—REHOUSING.
    MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the fact that Mr. Wylie, who attended at the Limehouse Town Hall on Friday last to inquire, on behalf of the Board of Education, as to the eligibility of Blakesley Street site for the erection thereon of a board school in the Tower Hamlets School Board Division, Block H, was offered an alternative vacant site in the same block, and was assured on behalf of the Stepney Borough Council that if the London School Board would exercise its responsibilities for rehousing, by taking a larger number than twenty houses in any slum property, the council would willingly cooperate with the School Board in any rehousing scheme, whether the Vice-President will order the Education Department to veto the Blakesley Street scheme, which proposes to dishouse 120 people in the most congested and populous district of East London, and to accept either of the alternative suggestions offered.
    *SIR J. GORST: There has not yet been time to consider the Report of the Inspector who attended at the inquiry.

    ENGLISH LAND REGISTRY.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he can state the number of titles registered since 1862, when the existing system of land registry was established, under which it is open to any landowner in England to voluntarily register his title; and, having regard to the fact that the

    1105
    system of compulsory registration of title, under the Land Transfer Act, 1897, was to be experimental only, as is shown by the provision that the system was not to be extended beyond one county for three years after the first Order making registration compulsory; and, seeing that the new system came into operation in the county of London under an Order dated 18th July, 1898, whether it is intended to hold an inquiry into its working before the experimental period of three years expires on the 17th July next; or whether it is proposed to test the working of the system in some other way, in view of the complaints that 'the system has added to the difficulty and expense of dealing with property.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The total number of titles registered to the end of February is 17,281, of which 756 were prior to 31st December, 1898, as appears from the Parliamentary Return in July, 1899, No. 304. No case for holding an inquiry into the working of the Act has been established. Its extension is intended to be gradual, and its working will be tested from time to time by experience of the system in actual operation.

    KEIGHLEY SUNDAY LETTER DELIVERIES.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that on two Sundays in February the postman delivering in the Knowle Park district of Keighley returned numbers of undelivered letters; that the delivery of those letters was delayed twenty-four hours; that, on one occasion, the postmaster accompanied the man round the walk and insisted that he should not stay until his knocks were answered but should carry away the letters; and that, although many householders complain that though they responded with promptitude, the postman left before they reached the door; and whether he will give instructions to the Keighley postmaster to act in such a manner as to avoid inconvenience in the Sunday morning delivery of letters.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBER- LAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The Sunday delivery of letters at Keighley having become too protracted, in order to test the working of the arrangements, the postmaster accompanied one of the postmen on his round on the two Sundays referred to. He reports that most of the houses in the Knowle Park district have no street door letter boxes, and that at many of them no one came immediately to receive the letters. In order that other people might not have to wait for their correspondence, and that the postman's Sunday work might not be unduly protracted, the postmaster instructed the postman, after knocking at the door and waiting a reasonable time without response, to proceed on his route. In the Postmaster General's opinion the postmaster was justified in adopting this course.

    LIGHT RAILWAYS IN HIGHLAND CROFTING COUNTIES.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many certificates have been issued by the Secretary for Scotland, under Section 5 of the Light Railways Act, 1896 for the construction of light railways in the six Highland crofting counties; and will he state how many light railways have been constructed in these counties since the Light Railways Act came into force.
    *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer in the absence of my right hon. friend. Five certificates have been issued by the Secretary for Scotland, but no light railways have been constructed in the six crofting counties.

    MIGRATION FROM SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many crofters and cottars have been migrated with the assistance of the Congested Districts Board from the congested districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to other districts.
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: If the hon. Member means me to state the number of cases in which crofters and cottars have been migrated from the congested

    1107
    districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to places outside the congested districts area, the answer is that there have been none; but there have been, and are, in course of progress migrations of crofters within the congested districts, particulars of which will appear in the -Report.
    MR. WEIR: If the information is to be furnished with the Report of the Board, when will that Report be presented?
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope within two months.

    HALF TIMES IN SCOTCH SCHOOLS.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state the total number of children in Scotland for whom additional attendances have been claimed for the years ending 30th September, 1898, 1899, and 1900 respectively, under Article 23 (b) 1 of the Scotch Code, 1900; also the number of such children not employed under the Half Time Act but over ten years of age, and certified by the managers to be prevented from giving full attendance at school in consequence of being beneficially and necessarily employed at work during school hours during the same years respectively.
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, the number of children for whom additional attendances were claimed under the article quoted in the Code of 1900, and under the equivalent article in previous Codes was as follows: 3,402 in 1898, 3,434 in 1899, and 3,082 in 1900. As regards the second part of the question, the number of such children not employed under the Half Time Act, but certified as described, was: 2,556 for 1898, 2,318 for 1899, and 1,211 for the period ended 30th April, 1900, at which date the article under which this allowance was made was abolished.

    ULSTER ASSIZES.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state when last the Ulster winter assizes were held in the city of Londonderry, and in what other Ulster towns or cities
    1108
    have they since been held; and whether, considering that Londonderry has as good railway and other accommodation as any other town or city in Ulster, the step will be taken of holding the winter assizes this year in that city.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to this question. The winter assizes were last held in the city of Londonderry in the years 1891 and 1895; in the remaining years since the former date they have been held in Belfast and Omagh. In the selection of the venue for winter assizes the governing consideration is the effective, convenient and economical administration of justice. This depends on a number of changing circumstances which vary from year to year, so that it is impossible at this period to give the undertaking asked for in the question.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the special circumstances which render Belfast so favourable a venue?
    MR. ATKINSON: I cannot do that in answer to a question, but if the hon. Member will raise the subject on the Estimates I shall be happy to give him the numerous reasons.

    MOVILLE POLICE.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the three superior officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Moville—namely, the district inspector, head constable, and senior sergeant—are Protestants although Moville is a place where over three-quarters of the population are Roman Catholics; and, seeing that some time ago complaint was made to the Inspector General by the parish priest of Moville asking to have this remedied, whether the promise then made by him would now be carried out so that some at least of the senior officers who are Protestants be removed and their places filled by Roman Catholics.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The

    1109
    facts are as stated in the first paragraph. No promise was made by the Inspector General to the parish priest of Moville to the effect mentioned. I understand, however, that the senior sergeant, who is a Protestant, is about to be transferred to another station, and that he will be replaced by a Roman Catholic sergeant.

    THE "GRANUAILLE."
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board's steamer "Granuaille" underwent her annual repairs and survey in England last year; and whether, if the Londonderry Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Limited, are willing to undertake the repair of the steamer on terms similar to those charged the Board by the English firm who did the work last year, the necessary work of survey and repair will be entrusted this year to the Londonderry company, to which port the "Granuaille" often puts in, and thereby give employment to a city contiguous to the congested districts of Donegal.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The contract for repairs to this vessel last year was given to a Scotch firm, whose tender was considerably less than that of the Londonderry firm. When the vessel again requires to be repaired, tenders will be invited from the firms at Derry.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: What was the cost?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have not the figures with me.

    FISH CURING STATIONS ON THE DONEGAL COAST.
    MR. BOYLE (Donegal, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many curing stations have been erected by the Congested Districts Board on the Donegal coast; who are the lessees of same; and why has the curing station at Rossbeg been taken from a local fishcurer and handed over to a Scotchman, although the local man was prepared to pay the same rent as the Scotchman.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are ten curing stations, all of which save one, sublet to a
    1110
    Scotch firm, are at present on the Board's hands. These stations are only sublet for a fishing season, and then to the fishcurer who, in the Board's opinion, offers the best terms to the fishermen, regard being had to other circumstances, such as the business reputation of the applicant,

    LONDONDERRY ASSIZES—SENDING TRIVIAL CASES FOR TRIAL.
    MR. M'FADDEN (Donegal, E.): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the case of the King c Sarah Hagan and the King v. Mary Jane M'Laughlin and Mary A. Nelson, heard at the Londonderry Assizes on 18th March instant, and to the observations of Lord Justice Holmes commenting on the practice of magistrates sending such cases for trial at the assizes and putting the county to unnecessary expense, and stating that the Act under which the defendants were tried contemplated that such cases should be summarily dealt with and the county saved the expense of a trial at assizes; and if, in view of the observations of the Lord Justice in these and similar cases heard by him at the assizes for the north-west circuit, he will consider the advisability of issuing a circular to magistrates to refrain in future from returning such trivial cases for trial when they can be summarily dealt with at potty sessions, and also a circular to district inspectors of constabulary to cease asking magistrates to return trivial cases for trial, and thus save the ratepayers.
    MR. ATKINSON: In the first case mentioned the coroner's jury had found a verdict of manslaughter against the accused, and it was upon that charge she was brought before the magistrates, so that they had no option in the matter. In the other cases the solicitor concerned for the accused applied to have the cases disposed of summarily and the police officer in charge offered no objection whatever to that course. The Government cannot dictate to the magistrates as to how they should decide the cases which may come before them, but instructions will be given to the police to call the attention of the justices in cases of this character to their power of disposing of them summarily.

    GWEEBARRA BRIDGE, CO. DONEGAL.
    MR. BOYLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention as President of the Congested Districts Board has been drawn to a resolution of the Donegal County Council regarding the condition of the Gweebarra Bridge in the Glenties Rural District, County Donegal, and urging that the Board should take steps to have the bridge repaired; and whether, seeing that the bridge has only been recently erected by the. Board, they will comply with the request of the county council.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The bridge was completed in December, 1896, at a cost to the Board of £9,000. The Board is unable to relieve the county authorities of the responsibility undertaken by them in March, 1897, to maintain the bridge.

    KILLYDYSART DISTRICT COUNCIL.
    MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that the District Council of Killydysart, County Clare, were forbidden by the Local Government Board to pay an account due to Mr. Patrick M'Inerney, of Ennis, for timber, and that Mr. M'Inerney sued the District Council of Killydysart at the last quarter sessions and obtained a decree with costs against the district council, whether the Local Government Board will pay these costs incurred by the action of the Local Government Board in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The guardians of the Killydysart Union inquired from the Local Government Board whether they could legally pay a sum of money to Mr. M'Inerney for timber supplied between August, 1897, and January, 1899, but for which he did not present his account until August, 1900. The Board informed the guardians that in view of the terms of Section 51 (7) of the Local Government Act, it had no power to extend the time for payment in the case of sums due since the date of passing of the Act, namely, the 12th August, 1898. The action of the Board consisted merely of explaining the limits
    1112
    of its own jurisdiction. The reply to the last query is in the negative.
    MAJOR JAMESON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board do not unnecessarily interfere in these local matters?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I said that we have no power.
    MAJOR JAMESON: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that they did interfere?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the fact that costs were incurred in this case owing to the acts of the Local Government Board, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have the money refunded to the local authority?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I can give no such undertaking. In this case the Board put a query to the Local Government Board, which replied that it had no jurisdiction. I cannot carry the matter any further.

    IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT DRUG CONTRACTS.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish firms competing for the Supply of Local Government Board's prescribed lists of medicines are compelled to offer a discount off the scheduled prices; and that the Apothecaries Hall of Ireland, which holds a Royal charter, occupying a semi-official position, tenders for those contracts under cost price; whether any of the members of the Apothecaries Hall hold Government appointments; and whether a system will be adopted to enable private firms to enter into competition for those, contracts.
    MR. WYNDHAM: All firms tender upon precisely the same terms (and offer an abatement upon the gross cost of the articles purchased during the year). The Apothecaries Hall enjoys no privilege in connection with these

    1113
    contracts. It holds a charter for instruction in medicine, but the commercial branch transacts business for the benefit of the shareholders in the same way as any other firm. Private firms already compete for these contracts, and appear to secure about 96 per cent, of the contracts, and the Apothecaries Hall about 4 per cent. No change is proposed to be made in the system. I have no information on the second paragraph.
    MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the second paragraph?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information to enable me to do so.
    MR. FIELD: Why not inquire?

    CONGESTED DISTRICTS IN COUNTY SLIGO.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of electoral divisions at present scheduled under the Congested Districts Board in the poor law unions of Tobercurry and Boyle No. 2 (county Sligo), and whether, in view of the fact that there are grazing tracts in these districts, some of which are advertised for sale, he will consider the advisability of having the whole of these unions scheduled in order to facilitate the sale of the waste lands mentioned to the Board.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The numbers are 9 and 3 respectively. There is no power to schedule as congested areas divisions not already scheduled.

    FEVER IN THE ISLES OF ARRAN.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints have reached him regarding the fitness of the person appointed to the position of fever nurse in the Isles of Arran; whether several fresh cases of typhus fever have broken out; whether he is aware that the medical inspector of health has not as yet paid attention to the complaints made in this House regarding his non-visitation to the Isles;
    1114
    and whether, in view of the fact that the spring mackerel fishing industry soon opens, he will direct this Gentleman to proceed at once to the Isles and take such steps as may be necessary to check this disease.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have already stated that the employment of the male nurse referred to was the best arrangement possible in the emergency. Only one fresh case of sickness has since broken out, and it is doubtful whether it is fever. There is every reason to hope the disease is checked. The medical inspector visited the islands on 21st February, 28th February, and again on Saturday last, when he conferred with the medical officer of health, and ascertained that all due precautions had been carried out. The matter is being dealt with in the ordinary way by the rural district council, and the Local Government Board sees no reason for interfering in the discretion of the council in the choice of nurses, or otherwise.

    BAILIEBOROUGH UNION AMBULANCE.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why the Local Government Board have prevented the clerk of Bailieborough Union from paying promptly for the horsing of an ambulance van hired by them, which would diminish the payment to be made; and if he will direct more latitude to be given to boards of guardians in the future than is now allowed by the Local Government Board in such matters.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board did not take the action imputed to it in the first part of the question. The Board, in order to assist the Union in a controversy with the contractor, suggested that the guardians should enter into a permanent contract for the performance of such work. The guardians are acting on that suggestion.

    NATIONALIST MEMBERS AND THE COMMISSION OF THE PEACE.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he

    1115
    is aware that Mr. Kendal E. O'Brien, an hon. Member of this House, has been deprived by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland of the Commission of the Peace, which he held by virtue of his office as chairman of the Tipperary District Council, and that Mr. O'Brien has been twice since re-elected to the position, and each time refused the appointment by the Lord Chancellor: whether the evidence on which Mr. O'Brien was deprived of the Commission of the Peace was based on extracts taken from two alleged speeches which appeared in newspapers, no representatives from which were at either meeting; and whether, seeing that Mr. John O'Dowd and Mr. Conor O'Kelly, both hon. Members of this House, were similarly superseded, and subsequently re-ap-appointed, there is any reason why Mr. O'Brien should not be similarly treated by the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The circumstances of the case of the hon. Member for Mid Tipperary were different from those of the Members for South Sligo and North Mayo. The first hon. Member, so far from seeking to lessen the disqualification in respect of which he was removed from the magistracy, or allowing time to mitigate its force, gave utterance in further speeches, as reported in the press, to sentiments amounting, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, to further disqualification. The language reported to have been used by the hon. Member was communicated to him by the Lord Chancellor, but he neither I denied having used it, suggested any inaccuracy therein, or disclaimed its obvious meaning.
    MR. CULLINAN: May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the hon. Members of this House who were deprived of the Commission of the Peace, and have since been restored, admitted or denied the language they had used; and also whether these hon. Members made any apology whatever previous to their re-appointment to the Commission of the Peace?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have already given the grounds which guided the Lord Chancellor in this matter, and I can add nothing.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to say that in the circumstances in which I was reappointed I made no apology whatever for the views I had stated. I wish to say that I was deprived of the Commission of the Peace for sympathising with the Boers, and afterwards, on my re-election as Chairman of the District Council, I was re-appointed to the Commission of the Peace, and I made no apology for my views with regard to the Boers.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is there any appeal from the decision of the Lord Chancellor in these cases? MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: In what particulars did the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Tipperary differ from the cases of the hon. Members for North Mayo and South Sligo?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot call on the right hon. Gentleman to argue these points. [Ministerial laughter.]
    MR. CELLINAN: I think this is not a matter for laughter. I think it is a very serious matter.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to make observations of that kind.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIENrose.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Allow me, Sir, to point out that you may not be aware that the hon. Gentleman who has just risen is one of the hon. Gentlemen referred to in this question, and he may have a personal explanation to make.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the Lord Chancellor refused my application after being re-elected last June as Chairman of the District Council?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I think the hon. Member will see that, since I have put these questions to the Lord Chancellor, I cannot answer them without notice.

    SIR GEORGE WHITE'S CLAIM AT ANTRIM ASSIZES.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the County Antrim Assizes, on Thursday, 21st March, Sir George White claimed £25 in respect of damage done to the windows of his house at Knocknacarry, near Cushendun, for which damage the county court judge had previously awarded him £4 10s., that Mr. Justice Barton considered it was not a case of malicious injury, and disallowed the claim to compensation; and whether His Majesty's Government will see that Sir George White suffers no pecuniary loss in this matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Government have no power to award compensation to Sir George White under the circumstances mentioned.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Is not this the house from which a priest was evicted, and has Sir George White turned house-grabber?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    DUBLIN CUSTOMS HOUSE EXAMINATIONS.
    *MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who conducts the examinations held at the Custom House, Dublin, for candidates appointed by the county councils to the positions of assistant surveyor in Ireland; in what subjects the candidates are examined; and is the examination conducted in the same way, and are the subjects the same, or have they been increased, or has the standard for obtaining a certificate been raised since the coming into operation of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The examinations are conducted by the Engineering Department of the Local Government Board. The subjects of examination in the case
    1118
    of persons not professionally qualified are English composition, arithmetic, mensuration, building construction, construction and maintenance of roads, chain levelling and surveying. The questions set in these subjects are of an elementary character. Before the Act of 1898 came into operation, the examinations were conducted at the office of the Board of Works, and the subjects were mensuration, chain levelling, road and drainage works, surveying, and estimates for works.
    *MR. O'DOHERTY: Have the subjects increased in numbers since the Local Government Board came into operation, and is it because the candidates are now Nationalists, whereas formerly they were Unionists?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS—EXTRA SUBJECTS.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the fee paid for Irish taught in national schools as an extra subject; are fees paid on general proficiency or on individual passes; and in what classes, under new rules, may children be presented for Irish as an extra subject.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject, as the correspondence with the Treasury has not yet concluded.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    *MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return on the Notice Paper for Monday with reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. But Galway having been merged into the county by the operation of the Local Government Act it has now no separate authorised police establishment. I can exclude Galway, or include it with a note to the above effect.
    *MR. O'DOHERTY: It is my mistake. I should have put Limerick instead of

    1119
    Galway. Will the right hon. Gentleman grant the Return, if I substitute Limerick for Galway.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

    KNOCKBRACK (DONEGAL) SUB-POST OFFICE.
    MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a sub-post office which has been in existence at Knockbrack, Letter-kenny, county Donegal, for upwards of twenty years was abolished last year; and whether, seeing that the inhabitants of the district are unanimous in asking that the office be re-opened on the ground of public convenience, he will give directions to have the old post office restored to the district, in accordance with the memorial to the Postmaster General setting forth the inconvenience caused by closing this office.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The sub-post office at Knockbrack, Letterkenny, was closed last year in view of the difficulty of finding anyone suitable for the appointment of sub-postmaster. The postal business of the neighbourhood is not sufficient to justify the maintenance of a post office, and as a house-to-house delivery has now been established the office is no longer required as a place of call for letters. The Postmaster General will, however, make a further endeavour to find a suitable person for the office.

    IRISH LANGUAGE IN THE POST OFFICE.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can say for what languages interpreters are employed in the General Post Office, London; and whether, seeing that until recently efforts were made to deliver letters addressed in Irish, he can state who is responsible for a circular issued to post office officials directing them to regard all letters addressed in Irish as undeliverable or insufficiently addressed, and therefore to make no effort to deliver them.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The ordinary staff in the General Post Office,
    1120
    London, is able to deal with correspondence addressed in most languages, but no regular interpreters are employed. The Postmaster General doubts whether there are many persons, if, indeed, there are any, who can write letters in Irish and cannot write in English, and he does not consider it generally practicable to make special arrangements for the translation of addresses in Irish into English, especially in the case of letters posted in England. Nevertheless, he has given instructions that in the event of a letter in Irish passing through an office where it can be deciphered, the address shall be translated into English and the letter sent on to its destination.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that a number of Irishmen prefer to write their letters and address them in the Irish language?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper. The Postmaster General has nothing to do with the language in which letters are written. If letters are written in Irish it will be for the convenience of the parties themselves.
    MR. WEIR: Will similar instructions be given with regard to letters addressed in Gaelic?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. FLAVIN: Is it not a fact that a number of people Hying in Ireland can only write in the Irish language?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. FLAVIN: I will call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

    GLENCOLUMBKILLE (DONEGAL) EX-SUB-POSTMASTER.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can give the date of dismissal of the ex-sub-postmaster of Glencolumbkille, county Donegal, and the date of appointment of his successor; whether he is aware that the head postmaster of the

    1121
    district removed the post office to the house of a man named Byrne, whose house was the most suitable, and whom he recommended for the vacant position, and that a memorial, signed by nearly all the inhabitants, recommending the appointment of Mr. Byrne, was sent to the Postmaster General; and can he explain why the position has been filled by the appointment of a retired sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was not a householder; can he say who recommended the present sub-postmaster for the position, and why a Protestant was appointed, seeing that the Roman Catholics are in a large majority in the district.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The situation of the late sub-postmaster of Glencolumbkille, county Donegal, was declared vacant on the 23rd December last, and it was decided on the 26th ultimo to appoint the present sub-postmaster. In the interim Mr. Byrne was placed in temporary charge of the duties (that being the best arrangement which could be made at the time), and two memorials, signed by inhabitants of the district, recommending Mr. Byrne for appointment, were received. Mr. Byrne's premises, however, were not so conveniently situated as the present sub-office: and there were other reasons against his appointment. The appointment of the present sub-postmaster was recommended by persons on whose judgment the Postmaster general can rely; and, having become the tenant of the premises in which the late sub-postmaster carried on the business, and which were central, and otherwise suitable, he was selected for the appointment. The Department is not concerned with a candidate's religious belief, and the appointment in such cases is dependent simply on character and fitness to perform post office work.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the person to whom he gave the appointment was a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary at the date of his application and appointment?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether that was so or not.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will do so if the hon. Member wishes, but it does not appear to me to be of any consequence.
    MR.O'DOHERTY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is an Irish-speaking district, and that Mr. Byrne was an Irish speaker?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot argue the question now.

    CAHIR (TIPPERARY) POST OFFICE.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether representations have been made of the unsuitability of the post office in Cahir, county Tipperary; whether the postal authorities have been negotiating for more suitable premises; and if he can state what steps will be taken to provide a post office in keeping with the requirements of this centre.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A scheme for providing a Crown post office at Cahir on a site in Church Street has been sanctioned and the acquisition of the ground is in progress.

    PROTECTION OF IRISH FISHERIES.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the number and names of gunboats detailed for the protection of Irish fisheries, and how long ago they were detailed for this work.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The following gunboats are employed in the protection of Irish fisheries—namely, "Skipjack," "Argus," and "Amelia." The orders under which they are so employed were revised and issued in the year 1889; but gunboats have been employed in Ireland on fishery duty for many years prior to this.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: What is the speed of these sailing cruisers?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The speed of the sailing cruisers varies with the strength and direction of the wind.
    MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where these vessels are stationed?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not say. The duty was about the: coast.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: May I ask whether these sailing ships are of the least value against steam trawlers?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That question does not arise. The only question on the Paper is with reference to the number and names of the vessels.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the hon. Gentleman would cause an additional number of cruisers to be sent in view of the fact that three were entirely insufficient.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is a question of opinion.

    IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
    MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen. S.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government, in case they should advise His Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the questions connected with university education in Ireland, will so frame the terms of reference to the Commissioners as to enable them to inquire into the present arrangements of Trinity College, Dublin, and to report whether any and what changes can be made in those arrangements which would induce persons not members of the Protestant Episcopal Church to resort more freely to Trinity College and make it more attractive to them.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A.J. BALFOUR,): No, Sir; I should be reluctant to increase the controversial difficulties of a very difficult and controversial subject by including Trinity College within the scope of such an inquiry.
    MR. BRYCE: Mill the right hon. Gentleman before coming to a final decision consider the effect on the value of the findings of the Commission which such an exclusion would involve?
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Will the First Lord of the Treasury state when the debate on the question of a Roman Catholic University for Ireland will be taken?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The debate on the question that the Speaker leave the Chair will come on immediately after the Budget, and, if the necessary resolutions are obtained on Thursday, the 18th, I should move the Speaker out of the Chair on Friday, the 19th. If it is necessary to take more than one day for the necessary work of the earlier stages of the Budget, then on the Monday following L should move the Speaker out of the Chair.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right hon, Gentleman consider the desirableness of not finally settling the terms of reference on the subject of university education in Ireland before that debate takes place?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider the propriety of that suggestion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE— EASTER RECESS.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when the House will rise for the Faster Recess and meet again for the despatch of business.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think probably the most convenient course with regard to the holidays will be to move the resolution on the subject on Tuesday week at the beginning of business. We might then proceed with the private Members' resolutions, and we should return on Thursday, the 18th, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce his Budget. That will be a more convenient course than returning on the Monday fortnight.
MR.ASQUITH: Will the Leader of the House state what business will be taken this week.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill will be the first order, on Thursday the Third Reading, to be followed by the Army (Annual) Bill, and on Friday the Navy Estimates.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: What will follow the Appropriation Bill on Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Some small Bill—the Isolation Hospitals Bill, I believe.

COMMONS.
Mr. Crombie, Mr. Freeman Thomas, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Heywood Johnstone.
1126
Mr. William Jones, Mr. A. K. Loyd, and Mr. Montagu were nominated Members of the Select Committee on Commons, with Five Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir William Walrond.)

NEW BILL.

  DEMISE OF THE CROWN.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The object of the Bill which I ask leave to introduce is to render unnecessary fresh appointments to office on the demise of the Crown. The House may be aware that, according to the doctrine of Common Law, all offices held of the Crown were vacated by the death of the Sovereign, and fresh appointments by the successor were necessary. Until such appointments were made there would be a complete suspension of all functions of the body politic. The extraordinary inconveniences incident to such a rule have led to several qualifications by statute, but except as to commissions in the Army and Navy, as to which the rule was abrogated in 1837, it still prevails with the qualifications to which I have referred. These qualifications may be shortly stated. In 1707, by the Act regulating the succession to the Crown, it was provided that officers in Great Britain and Ireland and the Colonies should continue to hold their commissions for six months after the demise of the Crown, subject, of course, to the power of earlier removal; and in 1830 this period was for the colonies extended to eighteen months. These enactments apply only to British dominions, so that offices under the Crown in protectorates, which are not technically part of the King's dominions for this purpose, and in foreign parts generally, would still be vacated immediately on the demise of the Crown. As regards British dominions, reappointment is still necessary within the term of six months for the United Kingdom, and eighteen months for the colonies. This state of the law is productive of inconvenience, as the House is aware from the numerous questions which have been addressed to Ministers as to the tenure of office by Justices of the Peace; and,

  1127
  indeed, in the case of protectorates, if the rule were acted upon in practice, it would produce an entire paralysis of all government until the pleasure of the new Sovereign should be made known. It has been suggested that the necessity of reappointment in consequence of the demise of the Crown might have a further effect in the case of Ministers of the Crown who are Members of this House. The House is aware that in 1867 it was provided that, in the case of certain Ministerial offices, re-election should not be necessary in the case of a Member who had held one of these offices at the time of his election and afterwards accepted another in lieu of the first. The suggestion is that reappointment to the same office rendered necessary by the demise of the Crown is a casus omissus, and that while no re-election would be necessary on appointment to another office, reappointment to the same office might entail re-election. This, of course, would be a somewhat extraordinary state of the law. It may well be doubted whether reappointment under such circumstances would amount to an acceptance of office under the Statute of Anne requiring re-election, but the enactments as they at present stand are far from clear, and opinions may differ as to their effect on this point. I hope the House will agree that the point is not one which should be left in any doubt, and that the proposed Bill, if passed into law, will very properly put an end to a state of things under which conceivably this House might arrive at one conclusion and the Courts of Law at another. The rule that offices are held only during the life of the Sovereign by whom the appointments were made is, in fact, a legacy from days in which constitutional government as it now exists in this country had not been evolved, when, by the death of the Sovereign, Parliament was not only ipso facto dissolved, but all executive government, and indeed all judicial functions, were regarded as having their service in the personal will of the Sovereign for the time being. No good reason can be given for the continued existence of such a rule at the present time, and it is proposed by this Bill that the tenure of office should not be affected by the demise of the Crown. The Bill will apply to all offices under the Crown,
  1128
  whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, and it is proposed that it should take effect as from the last demise of the Crown. I have only to add that it will not in the slightest degree affect the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss at pleasure those who hold office, but it will only dispense with the necessity for reappointment. I beg to move.

  DEMISE OF THE CROWN.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the holding of offices in case of the demise of the Crown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Solicitor General.
  DEMISE OF THE CROWN KILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the holding of offices in the case of the demise of the Crown," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

SUPPLY [23RD MARCH].
(SECOND ALLOTTED DAY.)
Resolutions reported:—

SUPPLY [23RD MARCH].

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  A. "That 118,625 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, including 19,805 Royal Marines."
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,760,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."

  CIVIL SERVICES EXCESSES, 1899–1900.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £24 2s., be granted to His Majesty to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services and Revenue Departments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, namely:—

  Class I.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Peterhead Harbour

  …

  2

  2

  0

  Rates on Government Property

  …

  10

  0

  0

  Class VI.

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  2

  0

  0

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Post office

  10

  0

  0

  Total

  £24

  2

  0 "

  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. LOUGHsaid he wished to take that opportunity of saying with how much satisfaction he had heard when this Vote was last before the House the statement of the hon. Member for Dundee as to the great amount to which these Estimates had been swollen this year. More especially was he glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman spoke in behalf of the Front Opposition Bench and of many Members who sat behind them. He thought it was quite time for formal expression of dissatisfaction to be given from the Front Opposition Bench about the very heavy Estimates which were becoming customary in this House, and which were apparently accepted without a word of protest. He had heard the First Lord of the Treasury state that there was no such word as economy in the vocabulary of the House now; but a very good speech had been made by the hon. Member for Dundee in behalf of more moderate Navy Estimates. The position they were in in regard to these large Estimates—the increases in the men and money asked for—was unprecedented in the history of the country. At the close of a long and arduous campaign, instead of the nation being allowed to have a time of rest and quiet and an escape from these heavy liabilities, the Estimates laid before the House had reached unparalleled figures. Only four years ago—in 1897—the Army and Navy Estimates amounted to £40,000,000; but this year, apart altogether from the war, they amounted to £64,000,000, or an increase of three-fifths. It seemed to him that the question put by his hon. friend—why these Estimates were so large?—was a very necessary one for them to consider.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me to be entering on a general discussion. This is the Report of Supply on Vote A 1, and the hon. Gentleman's argument must be confined to that particular Vote.
  MR. LOUGH: I thought there was an understanding that on this Vote, which refers to the increase of the number of men for the Navy, it would be possible to make a general protest against the Estimates if it were thought well to do so.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am not cognisant of any such arrangement. I only know what the rule of the House is.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would try and keep within the limits Mr. Speaker had laid down. He thought they had abundant evidence that this Vote, as well as the Estimates generally, had been brought forward in a spirit of panic for which he could see no reason whatever. He would point out that the standard which was adopted by the House and country, that our Navy as regards men and ships should be equal to the navies of any two European Powers, had been entirely departed from. Now we seemed to be nearly as strong as any three Powers. He knew that that was questioned by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, but very strong reasons could be given in support of it. It was quite clear, at any rate, that we were doing a great deal more this year than necessary if we were only to maintain the old standard. We were more responsible than any other Power in the world for the great increase in recent years of both naval and military expenditure. That responsibility used to rest with France and Germany, but now it rested upon England, and he questioned whether we were improving our relative position, for the more we spent the more would the other Powers be stimulated to spend. In 1893 the total amount which was spentwas£30,000,000; in this year the Government had spent £48,000,000.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member seems to be entering upon a general discussion, which is not in order upon the Report stage. The

  1131
  discussion on this Vote must be confined to the number of men.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he had considered the question put to him when this matter was before the House in the previous week, namely, the desirability of obtaining some comparative statement as to the strength of the active lists of the navies of the world. When occupying the position which the hon. Gentleman held, some six years ago, he had obtained such a statement, and a very important statement it was, as it enabled the House to compare the active strength of our Navy with that of other navies. He believed that the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty could arrive at a fairly accurate idea, and he felt that the country would be gratified if the hon. Gentleman would promise that such a statement would be prepared.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDdisclaimed any intention of occupying the time of the House upon this subject, but said he could not allow the Vote to go without a protest. A very substantial increase of men had been asked for on those voted in the previous year, an increase of 4,000, and it was worthy of the attention of the House to remember that there was no finality about this matter. The numbers asked for increased year by year, and he thought the Government ought to say what their policy was with regard to these naval Estimates. Was it intended to go on year after year for all time asking for increases of men and money, or was there a standard which the Government desired to reach and with which they would be satisfied when it was attained? The Irish Members had every reason to be dissatisfied with these Estimates, because Ireland derived very little benefit from the Navy. There were only three gunboats on the coast of Ireland protecting fisheries, manned by comparatively few men, and it was therefore hard that Ireland should be asked to agree to this large increase, the cost of which would in a great measure fall upon her. Before increasing the number of men in the Navy ho would like to hear whether the Government had put themselves into
  1132
  communication with the great self-governing colonies of the Empire, and asked them whether they were prepared to bear any share of the enormous cost which this great increase involved. The colonies paid little or nothing in support of the Navy, and if the Government had not done so it was not unreasonable to ask them to approach the colonies in this matter, and ask them whether they were prepared to bear the expense of, say, 500 of the men asked for in the Vote.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)apologised for having omitted to answer the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, who had asked for a Return of the active lists—the personnel of the navies of the world. He did not agree with the suggestion that such a Return should be produced. In dealing with the French Navy it would be necessary to include the Inscription Maritime. The active list of the Russian Navy-did not include the men of the volunteer fleet, while that of the United States contained enlisted men and, landsmen. They would be comparing a number of things so absolutely dissimilar that they would greatly mislead the public by issuing a Return of the active personnel of the various navies. The Return of the materiel published in response to a request of the Member for Forest of Dean was, he thought, a much more satisfactory criterion of the comparative strength of the navies of the world. He was very much in sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for East Clare, and he most fervently desired that we should have contributions from all our great colonies to our Navy as well as to our Army. But he-would point out that this was not made easier when an hon. Member described, as the hon. Member for Limerick did describe, the contributions from the colonies to the Army as being composed of "gaol-birds" and "corner boys."
  *MR. H. J. WILSONwho was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he associated himself with the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for West Islington that there ought to be greater control of

  1133
  this military and naval expenditure, which was piling up year after year to an enormous extent. Even those who thought it was all very well in times of good trade would find that in times of depression it would inflict a great burden upon the country. He maintained that it was an entirely unnecessary, extravagant, and wild expenditure, and he should protest against it by his vote.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)asked how the Vote for the increased number of men stood with regard to firemen and stokers. He pointed out that these men had a strong and natural disinclination to work the Belleville or any water-tube boilers, having regard to the constant accidents which were happening and the danger attendant on working them, and he asked to know whether a refusal on the part of these men to work these boilers would entail any punishment upon them.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to address a question to the First Lord of the Treasury. When the Army Estimates were before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War stated that one of his proposals was an increase in the number of men in the Army; that this was to relieve them of the responsibility of manning the coaling stations, and that the Admiralty would naturally take over that responsibility. The Secretary to the Admiralty the other day gave them to understand that the Admiralty viewed that proposal with disfavour. There was no doubt that the Admiralty and the War Department were at conflict on this very important (matter. It was an open secret that the late Board of Admiralty were adverse to this proposal, and he could certainly say that the Board previous to the late Board of Admiralty were hostile to it. The position was this: If the War Department was not going to relieve the Navy of this responsibility, the new scheme would not increase the effective force by 5,000 men, as the Secretary for War foreshadowed the other day. If the Admiralty meant to stand firm and not be cajoled into taking over the responsibility, he thought this was the opportunity to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to give the House and the country some enlightenment as to what
  1134
  was likely to happen on this very important question.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): When my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War referred to what he considered the desirability—and what from many points of view is the desirability—of handing over the garrisoning of coaling stations to the Admiralty, he did not state, and he would not have been justified in stating, that the matter is one which has been finally decided upon. It was still under discussion. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a great variety of opinion upon the subject, and probably neither the Admiralty nor the War Office is very desirous of having handed over to them the somewhat ungrateful task of garrisoning these naval fortresses. It would be impossible for me to make any definite statement as to a policy which is still undecided, but of course we cannot wait for our number of men for the Navy until that decision has been taken. I do not think this matter strictly relevant to the Vote before the House.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the reasons which the Secretary to the Admiralty gave for not making a comparison between the British Navy and those of other Powers showed clearly how well the British Navy compared with others. That being the case, he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether, under the circumstances, there was really any justification for this enormous increase in the number of men the House was asked to sanction. He wished also to ask why the Government did not do a little more in the way of developing the fishery harbours. If this country were ever unfortunately engaged in a maritime war, it would have to depend to a great extent for its reserves of men upon the seafaring class, and more particularly the fishermen. Could not something of permanent utility be done in that direction, which would be an additional source of strength to the country in time of war, instead of making large additions from time to time in the numerical strength of the Navy?
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): I do not think the

  1135
  answer of the First Lord of the Treasury is quite as full as we might desire. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the number of men we are now voting for the Navy does or does not include the number of men that will be required if the Admiralty take over the garrisoning of the coaling stations? The Secretary to the Admiralty has said that the Secretary of State for War was expressing only a personal opinion on the expediency of the Navy taking charge of these stations. I should assume, unless I am told to the contrary, that this Vote is on the basis that they really do not contemplate taking charge of the coaling stations. That is a curious position, because the plan of the Secretary of State for War of reinforcing his Regular troops so as to have 120,000 men always ready to go abroad depends to a certain degree upon the Navy discharging this duty. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote says the Navy does not want this duty, but the House ought not to pass the Vote until we have a clear understanding as to who is going to garrison the coaling stations.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. In any case there will be no change in the course of the present year.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then what becomes of your Army plan?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No one has suggested that the whole Army scheme should be carried out in the next twelve months.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What I understand is that the number of the Regular forces which may be required to go abroad at any moment depends on the Navy taking over the charge of the coaling stations. Therefore we are to assume that for the present the Navy will not take over the coaling stations. The next time we have an opportunity of examining the Secretary of State for War we must ask him what has become of that part of his plan, which was certainly assumed to be most essential to the efficiency of the force of 120,000 men which is to be ready for all eventualities. The scheme will at least be lame of one foot.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid it seemed to him extraordinary that the War Office and the Admiralty should not have made up their minds on this somewhat important matter. The difficulty of getting men was the crux of both positions, and the country and the world were taken into the confidence of the Government in a way that indicated there was a difference of opinion between the two Departments. He regretted that anything had been said about this until the Government were in a position to state that some final decision had been come to. It was hardly in accordance, with the past traditions of the Government when there was this difference of opinion that they should state-it in the House.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid charges had been made against the Government by the Member for West Monmouthshire and the Member for West Islington which were a little difficult to understand in their contradictoriness. They were told over and over again that the House should be taken into the confidence of the Government, that the Government should not come there with a cut-and-dried scheme, but that the House should have the opportunity of debating the scheme and advising the Government according to their collective wisdom. Then hon. Members availed themselves of the opportunity when it arose for attacking the Government because there was apparently a want of cohesion between the Departments. It seemed to him, having regard to the number of hon. Members in the House who had Service experience, that it was most desirable that the Government should take the sense of the House upon the question whether or not the coaling stations should be dealt with by men belonging to the Army or Navy. Therefore he ventured to think, now that the question was open for debate, it was one well worthy the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire appeared to suggest that if these men, numbering about 7,000 altogether, were not borne by the Navy, the whole of the Army scheme was destroyed.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said it would be lame of one foot
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid one foot was half the power of the Army. There was obvious exaggeration in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, which he was sure the House would appreciate almost the moment it was made. It seemed to him that the Admiralty Board would be ill advised if they were to deal with this question without the fullest consideration. That the Service Members were capable of assisting the Admiralty Board he felt perfectly certain, He wished to refer to a matter which the Secretary to the Admiralty left largely untouched in his reply the other night—the question of the engineers of the Fleet. There was an amount of quiet discontent among the engineers, but they would continue to do their duty, notwithstanding the apparent want of sympathy with them which was shown by the Admiralty Board. He urged that the Board should grant them the one privilege of rank which they asked. This matter was not new. He believed it was thoroughly understood by the Secretary to the Admiralty. He would remind the hon. Member that there had been inquiries extending over several years in regard to this question. Lord Lansdowne, in a recent speech apropos of Army doctors, used these pregnant words—
  "It has sometimes been said, what does rank matter? Is not the title of doctor or surgeon by itself to be regarded as a title, which any one should be proud to bear without further adjuncts? I think the answer to this question is that in the Army rank is the outward and visible sign of consideration and authority, and it is necessary in the military profession that a man should have a military stamp to distinguish him and to secure him his proper place among his comrades."
  Admiral Sir J. O. Hopkins, who was formerly a Lord of the Admiralty, and lately served as Commander-in-Chief on the Mediterranean Station, had used these words—
  "And now let me touch on the vexed question of the position of the engineers, and suggest that the time has arrived to accord them executive rank. Their duties are purely executive, and should be recognised as such, and the recognition cannot, in my opinion, clash in any single instance with the other executives."
  The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that there was no possibility of engineers, if given executive rank,
  1138
  ranking in the Navy in such a way that they would be able to assume, ultimately, executive command of a ship. There was no suggestion or desire on the part of engineers that they should be able to do so. All they had asked for was that they should have the same relation to the men under them as the marine officer had to the men under his command. That was the one thing which the engineers were pressing for. It was the universal feeling amongst engineers of the Fleet. This was not a matter of philanthropy or of grievance; it was rather a matter of making the Fleet absolutely efficient by getting the very best men for a position with so large a, responsibility, and keeping them contented. He did not wish to press this matter ad nauseam. The matter was thoroughly understood by the Secretary to the Admiralty, and he felt certain that if a reasonable amount of time was allowed to the Board of Admiralty, with the cooperation of the hon. Gentleman, some reform would be made. He regretted, however, from communications which had reached him that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman was so- little satisfactory and so little encouraging that he thought it would ho desirable to press the matter upon him once more.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I entirely sympathise with my hon. friend's contention, and I think the change must be made sooner or later—the sooner the better. I merely wish to point out, however, that there is no right on the part of the marine officer on board ship to exercise such functions. The captain can delegate to the marine officer the power to inflict punishments for minor offences, and that, I understand, is all my hon. friend claims on behalf of the engineers. The engineers are becoming so important a unit in the Navy that you ought to approach this question in a somewhat larger spirit. My opinion is that if they had this executive authority, you ought to organise the engineer branch as a unit in itself, the same as the Royal Engineers in the Army, and the marine force in the Navy. The question should be approached from the point of view rather of the

  1139
  Service than of the engineer. In the First Lord's statement there is a very remarkable passage with regard to the wastage in the marine force. He points out that that wastage is greater than it has been for a great many years, but he does not tell us what is the wastage of the executive and engineering branches of the Navy. Is the wastage in the marine branch on the increase, and is it greater now than it has ever been? If so, can the Secretary to the Admiralty give any reason for it? I am informed that it is because the marine force has not been kept up in the same proportion with the Navy proper as formerly, and that instead of, as in former times, the marine spending most of his time on shore, and the smaller part at sea, he now spends more of his time at sea relatively to his time on
  shore. I am told, but it is a difficult thing to establish, that as a matter of fact, if you compare the gunnery and torpedo branch of the Navy with the marine artillery or marine branch, it will be found that you are now keeping the marine branch at sea longer than the bluejacket branch. That is not a right state of things. I therefore merely ask my hon. friend whether he can throw any light on the question of wastage, and give us any information as to its cause, and whether it is exceptionally great in that particular branch of the Navy in comparison with the executive and engineering branches.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 96.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Faber, George Denison

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, George H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Asher, Alexander

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Chapman, Edward

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Flower, Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)

  Austin, Sir John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fuller, J. M. P.

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Garfit, William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W(Leeds)

  Cox, Irwin, Edward Bainbridge

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. H'ml'ts)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnEldon

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Crombie, John William

  Goulding, Rdward Alfred

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gram, Corrie

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Greene, Sir E W. (B'y S. Edm'nds

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Black, Alexander William

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Blundell, Col. Henry

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hain, Edward

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dockson, Charles Scott

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midd'x)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir E. Dixon

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

  Duncan, James H.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Burt, Thomas

  Edwards, Frank

  Hayne, Rt.-Hon. CharlesSeale-

  Buxton. Sydney Charles

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Caine, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Henderson, Alexander

  Caldwell, James

  Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas

  Hoare, Edw Brodie(Hampstead)

  Cameron, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  Hothouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Holland, William Henry

  More, Rbt. Jas. (Shropshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hope, JF (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Muntz, Philip A.

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

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Myers, William Henry,

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Joicey, Sir James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stock, James Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Strachey, Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stroyan, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Heading)

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kimber, Henry

  Parker, Gilbert

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Kinloch, SirJonn (George Smyth

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Knowles, Lees

  Peel Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Lambert, George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Lambton, Hon. Fred. Wm.

  Percy, Earl

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lawrence, William F.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lee, Capt. AH. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Ure, Alexander

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Valentia, Viscount

  Leighton, Stanley

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield)

  Leng, Sir John

  Price, Robert John

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Levy, Maurice

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Purvis, Robert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rea, Russell

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Welby, Lt.-Col ACE (Taunton)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ridley S. Forde(BethnalGreen)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

  Rigg, Richard

  Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell-(Birn)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wodehouse, Hn. Armine(Essex)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Round, James

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Middlemore, John Throgmorth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col.Edw.J.

  NOES.

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Field, William

  Murphy, J.

  Blake, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Boyle, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Burns, John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Doherty, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

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

  Delany, William

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Dillon, John

  M'Fadden, Edward

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  1142

  1143

  Reddy, M.

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Second resolution:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Besolution."
  MR. KEABLEY: In connection with this Vote I want to put before the Secretary to the Admiralty what I deem to be a practical point with reference to recruiting. At the present moment the Navy is recruited in those districts where the Service is held to be a hereditary service. In the constituency I represent, fathers and sons have for generations gone into the Navy, and it is the same in other naval ports. The suggestion I make is that the Admiralty should consider the advisability of recruiting by recruiting officers in country districts. The country boy has many advantages. He is healthy, and so on, and for the stoker class especially I would suggest there are many advantages to be gained by sending recruiting officers into the country districts. If a boy in a country district wishes to join the Navy, he has nowhere to apply except possibly to a clergyman or at the police station, where you circulate recruiting notices. Neither of these is the proper medium to which a boy would be likely to apply, but if there was a petty officer recruiting in an agricultural district, say one officer to each county, I am perfectly certain you would get shoals of recruits. But it would be necessary to send a man down into the country in uniform. A country boy's idea of a sailor is a man in serge and so on. He would not understand a cloth coat. His only conception of a sailor is a man wearing blue serge and the ordinary get-up of a sailor. I make the suggestion because I think it is a practical one. There is no getting away from the fact that the Navy is the more popular Service. The Army may have some complaint because you are poaching on their preserves, but they are not so likely to get such a large number of men from the country districts into the Army, whereas if a man goes away from a country district into the Navy and puts in his full time, as the majority of them do, he
  1144
  conies back with a good pension and is a good advertisement for the Navy. You are wanting 4,000 or 5,000 recruits, and I should be glad to hear whether the hon. Gentleman thinks this suggestion a practical one.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he desired to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the annoyance and vexation that many naval officers were put to by the in and out system of full pay and half pay. He would not ask for an immediate answer, but would give an illustration which would convey the point he wished to make. A ship-came home, and was paid off. An officer got leave, and was on full pay for a certain period. He was then put on half pay, although he was about to be appointed to a guardship on full pay. He would give an instance of an officer at Chatham who, although it was known he was about to be appointed to a ship at Devonport, was put on half pay for a day or two previous to his appointment in order that he, and not the country, should pay his travelling expenses to Devonport. It was a constant trick on the part of the Admiralty to put an officer on half pay for a few days, with the result that he had to pay his own travelling expenses to join a ship. That led to great annoyance, and was very unjust. He merely wished to publicly direct the attention of the Secretary of the Admiralty to the way in which things were manipulated at the Admiralty with a view to justice being given to officers in the circumstances he had mentioned.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he desired to make a few observations of a general character, and also a few remarks of a local character. There was an increase of practically a quarter of a million in the amount of the appropriations in aid, and surely they were entitled to ask when finality in such an increasing expense would be reached. If the House voted nearly six millions of money, in another year or two the alarmists would start fresh sensational rumours about England being

  1145
  on the brink of invasion, there would be sensational pamphlets and paragraphs, and another increase of a million or two would be asked for, and Estimates already swollen would be still further swollen. There should be a protest against the continual increase of the Estimates, and it was time that the representatives of the taxpayers raised their voices against it. The Admiralty was stirred by every league and movement and plunged into greater and greater extravagance. Notwithstanding Ireland's enormous contribution to the Navy the Irish Members could not obtain from the Secretary to the Admiralty a guarantee that ships other than old tubs would be sent to protect the Irish fisheries; yet Australia was well provided with ships, although it contributed only £30,000 to the expenses of the Navy.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The contribution is £156,000.
  MR. FLYNNsaid there was a contribution of £14,000 in another Vote, and the wealthy and populous Australian colonies only paid the interest on the amount spent of the construction of the ships they had. Here was a contribution of only £30,000 from Australia, while that from Ireland was two and a quarter millions, and yet they could not obtain from the Admiralty the necessary gunboats for the protection of Irish fisheries.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of the Irish fisheries does not come within this Vote. I would further remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to raise the question of the financial relations of Ireland on Report of Supply on the number of men for the Navy.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he was only drawing a lesson, and not discussing the financial relations of Ireland. Ho was calling attention under Sub-head K to the very small contributions given by Australia and India to the support of the Navy; and he thought that the Admiralty should direct the attention of the Australian colonies, now federated into a mighty Empire, with enormous resources, increasing wealth and population, to the fact that they ought to contribute a larger share than they did to the cost of the Navy. He failed to see why they should not.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB,on a point of order, said that the sum of money contributed by the colonies was on Vote 16, and could be discussed when that Vote was reached.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite wrong. It was quite possible that there was another appropriation dealing with maintenance, but he was looking at Vote K. The other Vote was for a sum of £14,000 odd, payable by way of interest on capital expenditure for the construction of the ships of the Australian squadron. His point was that the contribution of the Australian colonies to the maintenance of the Navy was altogether inadequate in view of the increasing taxation in this country.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In reply to the hon. Member for North Cork, I have already said all that there is at present to say in regard to the question of colonial contributions to the Navy. The hon. Member for Devonport spoke of increasing the facilities for recruiting for the Navy in the inland counties. I think it is proved that even in the western counties we, as a rule, get the boys for the Navy from the inland and agricultural districts rather than from the sea-side towns. The sea-side boys generally go into the fishing fleet. The boys who enter the Navy do so more from having read books than from seeing ships. As a matter of fact, I am happy to say that at present we have experienced no serious difficulty in obtaining a full supply of well-qualified boys for the service of the Fleet.
  MR. JOYCEsaid that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated in answer to a question put to him that there were five coastguard gunboats to watch the Irish fisheries. He thought from his knowledge of the subject that that was a mistake—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will find an opportunity of dealing with that question on a later Vote.
  MR. JOYCE: I defer to your judgment on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I would not defer to anybody else's judgment in this House. But I find on this Vote of five millions a portion of the

  1147
  money is for the payment of the coastguard vessels.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: These are not coastguard vessels.
  MR. JOYCEsaid he would raise his point at the proper time if he was not in order now. But he found one portion of this five millions was for the victualling of the Navy—
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a separate Vote. The question before the House is merely that of the pay of the men, and if the hon. Member wants to say anything on that he will be relevant.
  MR. ARCHDALEwished to call attention to a most deserving class in the Navy—the boatswains. Four years ago the Admiralty had given the gunners an extra pay of eighteen-pence a day, and he saw no reason why the equally deserving class of boatswains should not have had the same money. Ho confessed that in his own time in the Service, when all the ships were masted, the boatswains were of more use than now, but what with the increase in education the boatswains were in these days as well up in gunnery and torpedo work as the warrant officers, and he pressed on the Secretary to the Admiralty to give them the same rate of pay as the warrant officers. He also wished the Admiralty would send to the West Coast of Ireland a training ship to induce the boys there to join the Navy. In his own county he had done the best ho could to induce boys to join the Navy, which he thought one of the finest services in the world; and he believed a training ship in Loch Swilly would do a great deal of good.
  MR. POWERsaid that Irish Members looked at the question of the Navy from a different point of view from other hon. Members who regarded it from the purely British or colonial standpoint. Irish Members had unfortunately different interests to protect. It had been said that the cost of the Navy was merely an insurance for the safe carrying on of British trade, but Ireland had no foreign trade to protect, and he thought the colonies,
  1148
  with their expanding trade, ought to contribute more than they did to these gigantic Votes.
  COMMANDER YOUNGwished to re-echo what had been said by his hon. and gallant friend in regard to the pay of the warrant officers in the Navy; and he felt certain that the Secretary to the Admiralty would give those interested in this subject an opportunity of laying their views fully before him on this matter. He hoped the filling up of the ranks of the chief warrant officers would not be so long-delayed in the future as in the past. For instance, the chief boatswain or the chief carpenter standing on the list first for promotion ought to be promoted almost immediately; for, if not, he might die in the meantime and his widow would lose all the advantages of pension of the rank to which he ought long before to have been promoted. The hon. Member for Devonport had spoken of the advantages of recruiting for the Navy in the rural districts, and expressed the hope that it would be extended. He should suggest that when the Admiralty sent an officer to recruit they should send one likely "to go down." A man came to his district who could not spin a yarn, sing a song, nor dance a hornpipe, and objected to sit up late at night. From what he heard, the people in the neighbourhood said that if the Admiralty could not send a better man they had better send none at all.
  *MR. WEIRdesired to support the hon. Member who had been urging the importance of going to new recruiting districts for the Navy. There were no better districts than the coasts of the United Kingdom, and no better material could be found than on the north and north-west coast of Scotland. The Admiralty had been good enough to promise that the "Northampton" training ship should visit Stornoway in the autumn, but that was not enough—a training ship should be permanently stationed in the district. A large sum was down on the Vote for the coastguard. He would ask that the coastguard should be instructed to report eases of illegal trawling, and he thought the Naval

  1149
  Reserve at Stornoway should be provided with something better than model guns.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *MR. WEIRsaid he was only anxious that the Naval Reserve men should be allowed the opportunity of becoming expert gunners.
  *MR. O'DOHERTYjoined in the protest of the hon. Member for North Cork that the self-governing colonies did not contribute to the Navy the same amount in proportion to their resources and population as Ireland did. Ireland was an agricultural country which fed herself, and consequenrly she had no commerce to protect; and therefore the supremacy of the British Navy was quite immaterial to them in Ireland. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh had said that they in Ireland were interested in this Vote as the Government had stationed a training ship in Lough Swilly. The, constituency he represented extended all round Lough Swilly, and he had been there quite recently, but he saw no training ship, unless it was one of the new invisible submarine boats. Ireland gained nothing from the expenditure on the Navy. Not many months ago the Corporation and people of Derry sent a petition to the Admiralty asking that the Channel Fleet should visit Lough Foyle—a request which had also been made the previous year—but nothing had come of it except a formal acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross-shire that the coastguard should take some share in the looking after illegal trawling had much to commend it, and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would take note of it. His constituency was altogether maritime, and he had to complain of the large number of English steam trawlers which were investing their waters.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in debating the Irish Fisheries on this Vote.
  *MR. O'DOHERTYsaid that with due respect to the Speaker the cost of the coastguards was on this Vote, and he thought the coastguards should be asked
  1150
  to report on any illegal trawling that took place in local waters. The coastguards, moreover, had a great deal of leisure time, and they could carry out the recommendations of the Commission on Salmon Fisheries without much fatigue to themselves.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise on this Vote.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that as the Government had refused to send any portion of the Fleet to protect the Irish fishing industry, they were perfectly justified in asking whether the coastguard, which was on this Vote, could not be employed in that duty.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the question of employing the coastguard in protecting Irish fisheries. That is a matter which comes under some other Vote.
  MR. FLAVINbowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling, but he would ask what were the duties of the coastguard? Were Irish Members not justified in saying that if their constituents were compelled to contribute a portion of the annual payment to the coastguard, they were entitled to claim an explanation of what their duties were, and whether these duties could not be extended to the protection of the Irish fisheries when they were refused protection from any other sources. Knowing the condition of the Irish fisheries they, had made application year after year for protection—
  MR. SPEAKER: I have told the hon. Gentleman that he cannot go into the question of illegal trawlers.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that with all due respect he was not going into that question. He was only pointing out that if it was necessary to prevent a long discussion on this Vote, more than ordinary attention should be paid to asking the coastguard to afford some protection to the Irish fisheries. If he was in order he would like to ask what justification there was for increasing the number of men or ships in the Navy. What were they going to receive in return for this vast amount of money? None of His Majesty's ships were either built or re-

  1151
  paired in Ireland. Perhaps a certain number of men were recruited there, but that was an unwise thing, in his opinion, from an Irish point of view.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order, and I really must ask him to conform to my ruling.
  MR. FLAVIN: I most respectfully bow to your ruling, but, as the £5,000,000 is part and parcel of the naval expenditure of this country, I thought I was entitled to discuss it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question is whether £5,000,000 should be voted for the pay of officers and men. The hon. Member is now going into the comparative sizes of the navies of Britain and other countries, and other matters which do not arise on this Vote.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he was not going into an elaborate discussion of the whole question, but he thought he might be justified in saying that the expenditure was not warranted, considering the revenue of the country as compared with the naval expenditure. The Nationalist Members considered that they were justified in protesting against all such expenditure. The people whom they represented received nothing in
  return for the money. They had asked for the protection of their fisheries, and that had been refused, and the only thing the Nationalist Members could do was to get up and protest night after night, and session after session against the expenditure of money. As long as the House continued to refuse to do justice to the fair claims of Ireland there was no other course open to them but to harp away until that country was allowed to manage her own affairs.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that until the Irish Members got a more sympathetic answer from the Secretary to the Admiralty in regard to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy it would be a very unwise thing to take any lad of that faith from his home and put him in the Navy, where he would not get the consolation of his religion. This Vote was asked for the purpose of providing an increased number of men, and he thought they had a perfect right to ask how many of the men would be apportioned to Ireland to assist in protecting the Irish fisheries.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 318; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 97.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Aird, Sir John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Black, Alexander William

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

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bond, Edward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Asher, Alexander

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Austin, Sir John

  Burt, Thomas

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Caine, William Sproston

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen n)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Caldwell, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiga

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts,S Geo.)

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

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Bartley, George C. T.

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bell, Richard

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Duncan, James H.

  Dunn, Sir William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Price, Robert John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Edwards, Frank

  Knowles, Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lambert, George

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

  Faber, George Denison

  Lawrence, William F.

  Ratchffe, R. F.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rea, Russell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Legge, Col Hon. Heneage

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Finch, George H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leighton, Stanley

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Leng, Sir John

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethal Green)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Levy, Maurice

  Rigg, Richard

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col A. R.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Garfit, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Round, James

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Godson, Sir August us Frederick

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHml'ts

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Green, Walford D. (Wednsbury

  Malcolm, Ian

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Smith, H.C.(Northmb. Tyneside

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriesshire

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Guthrie Walter Murray

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hain, Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Haldane, Richard Bunion

  Milton, Viscount

  Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stock, James Henry

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Middx

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

  Strachey, Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stroyan, John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Morrison, John Archibald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Thornborn, Sir Walter

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

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Holland, William Henry

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Myers, William Henry

  Ure, Alexander

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Howard, Capt J. (Kent, Faversh

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Palmer, George W. (Reading

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Partington Oswald

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Peel, Hon. William Robert W.

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Penn, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

  Philipps, John Wynford

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Jones, William (Carnavonsh.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  1154

  1155

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Doherty, William

  Blake, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Boyle, James

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Burns, John

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Malley, William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, J. P.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Murphy, J.

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid)

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Field, William

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Third Resolution agreed to.

  Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 21st day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read.
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 450,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Brodrick, Mr. Arnold-Forster, and Lord Stanley do prepare and bring it in.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "To provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
SUPPLY [19TH MARCH].
Resolution reported:—
SUPPLY [19TH MARCH].

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS REVISED SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1900–1901.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £893,316, be granted to His
  1156
  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 following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  Class V.

  £

  Vote 3. Colonial Services

  212,300

  Vote 2. British Protectorates in
  Uganda, etc

  200,000

  Class VII.

  Vote 1. Temporary Commissions

  9,000

  Class II.

  Vote 23. Stationery and Printing

  110,000

  Vote 27. Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  100

  Class III.

  Vote 2. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  400

  Class IV.

  Vote 5. Wallace Collection

  3,333

  Vote 8. London University

  70

  Class V.

  Vote 1. Diplomatic and Consular Services

  15,800

  Vote 6. Treasury Chest Fund

  66,108

  Class VI.

  Vote 1. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  10,000

  Vote 5. Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  51,758

  Class VII.

  Vote 2. Miscellaneous Expenses

  4,600

  Vote 6. Local Loans Fund

  4,337

  Vote 7. Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York (Visit to the Colonies)

  20,000

  Vote 8. Funeral of Her late Majesty

  35,500

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  £

  Vote 2. Inland Revenue

  20,000

  Vote 3. Post Office

  130,000

  Vote 4. Post Office Packet Service

  10

  Total Civil Services and Revenue Departments

  £893,316"

  Resolution road a second time.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid: I rise for the purpose of objecting to this Vote, and I think it will be for the advantage of the House that we should have your advice and decision as to the unusual form in which this Vote has been presented. It is a Vote of nearly a million of money, and it presents itself, I believe, for the first time, in the form of a Vote consolidating a number of classes of the Civil Service Estimates. Quite apart from the merits of that change, what I should like to hear your opinion upon is, under what authority and in what manner substantial and serious changes in the practice of the House are made. The circumstances will be fresh in the recollection of many Members. I do not wish to attribute any evil intention to those who made it, but this change was made in a manner which gave substantially no notice, and I venture to say it took all the non-official Members of the House by surprise. I have had some years experience of the Estimates, and I myself derived no information of any serious change having been made from reading the Paper. If such a change were necessary, I venture to suggest that it would have been proper that there should have been, as we often have in regard to Bills and Parliamentary Papers, a memorandum telling Members of the House that such a change had been made. What I wish to have your opinion upon is this, Has the Executive Government the power at a moment, with or without notice, and without consulting the House generally, to alter the established practice of Parliament? One of the most important duties of Members of the House is to watch the expenditure of the country, and that has been done by the aid of certain rules which have been made in regard to the form of Supply. Supply has been divided into classes which the House may conveniently consider, deal
  1158
  with, and vote upon, and, that being the established practice, this matter of form is vital to the control by the House over Supply. By what authority are serious changes to be made in the practice? If the Government can consolidate half a dozen or a, dozen classes, they may consolidate the whole of them, and if such a principle were to be laid down, then the Executive Government can practically defeat the whole control by the House over Supply by consolidating the classes. By that principle you may consolidate the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates in one Estimate and closure it. In considering what is to be the policy, when making changes, we must consider the extreme case which might arise under such authority. No man is better acquainted than you, Sir, with the sound principle in the Courts of Equity that the practice of the Court is the law of the Court. And so the practice of the High Court of Parliament is the law of Parliament until it is altered by proper authority. Is it not sound Parliamentary and constitutional law that no established practice of this House should be changed without giving the House sufficient notice and allowing us to give our opinion upon it? I have observed, as some mitigation of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, that when he was asked by one of his own supporters whether this was to be a regular practice or whether it was only done under extreme pressure, the right hon. Gentleman said nobody but a lunatic would ever dream of its being made a precedent. I hope that we may, with your assistance, have it laid down that this is to be no precedent in the future So much then for the first part. I want to ask your opinion upon, Sir, what I am contending for, and it is a most important tiling, and that is, that no change shall be made in the established rules of this House, especially with regard to the question of Supply, without giving the House of Commons an adequate opportunity of discussing the change. We know it was done without notice being given to the House of Commons, but what I should like to know is whether it was done on your authority. It was done on Friday night, after the Government had obtained a great many Votes with the consent of the House. This is a matter which lies at

  1159
  the root of the authority and character of the House of Commons. We are told, indeed, that this House is falling in the estimation of the country. I think it is our business to maintain the rights of the House in the face of the country.
  Now I pass for a moment to the merits of the thing itself. What is the merit in itself of consolidating a dozen separate Votes on each one of which the House ought to have a right of discussion and dividing. Although the Chairman of Committees has already ruled in Committee that we might discuss each item and divide upon it, we have no security that we shall be allowed to do so, if a Minister is at liberty to move the closure as soon as the Vote has been presented, and that motion can only be disposed of by a single division. If the principle laid down by the Chairman of Committees is conceded then we might discuss and divide on each item of the Vote, but there is no security for it, because the closure may be moved when six out of twelve items have been discussed, or it can be moved on the whole. If you once give the Government such authority in this matter without safeguards, you give them power to prevent discussion and division on any or all of these Votes. I venture, Sir, to submit that that is a question for you to advise the House as to whether or not changes of this magnitude and of this vital importance can be made, simply upon the suggestion of the Government, without adequate notice being given to the House. Whether there is any limit whatever, if it be so, to our power to test the feeling of the House by discussion and division, and whether this course might be taken in another year without there being an opportunity for that discussion and division upon these matters, which have hitherto been the universal practice of the House. It is a matter of vital importance, having regard to the position in which it places the House, and I venture to ask you, Sir—your authority stands much higher than even that of the Chairman of Committees upon this subject—if you will give the House the benefit of your judgment as to how far we have the power of resisting the autocracy of the Government in this matter of Committee of Supply and Report of Supply. It would be a very useful thing for the House of Commons to have an authoritative ruling from you.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was putting a question upon a point of order. He has put several questions so far as I can gather upon that point of order, and, that being so, perhaps I may be permitted to put a question also.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid it was not strictly a point of order; it was rather asking the direction and advice of the Speaker on a change of procedure.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I considered that the right hon. gentleman was raising a point of order.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of order, Sir, may I ask whether it is not the fact that the consolidation of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken did not place any further obstacle in the way of the Committee coming to a decision upon any item in the manner with which they were all familiar in dealing with Army and Navy Estimates. Is there not a distinct parallel?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: They are all under one official head.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is true, although the remark is irrelevant. I would like to ask a question with regard to the practice of the House. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's question to you, Sir, he desired to know whether it was in the power of the Government to alter the form in which the Estimates are to be presented without consulting the House. I will ask whether it is not the immemorial practice and tradition to do so. It is not in the power of the Government to make any great change in the Orders of this House, and I admit fully and amply that it would be a serious matter indeed if there were power to effect any great change in the Orders of this House without the fullest notice and the fullest opportunity being given to discuss the alteration. I grant that fully, but I will ask you, Sir, whether at the time this change was effected there was not such a congestion of Estimates that unless this change or some other not less violent had been effected it would have been impossible to carry out the law and practice of Parliament; and I

  1161
  will also ask yon. Sir, whether the alteration in the Order was not as much due to the degree in which the Government was forced at the commencement of the session by the House in the discussion of these Estimates? These are questions which I hope you will hear in mind before coming to a decision.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Both the right hon. Gentlemen in putting to me points of order have introduced many questions of fact, have dealt with the merits of these questions, and have presented their arguments under the guise of arguing a question of order. Upon these matters I do not feel called upon to give an answer. So far as order and procedure are concerned. I may briefly say that it is extremely difficult in my judgment to define the precise limits of the rights of a Minister of the Crown in making alterations in the form in which Estimates have been usually presented to the I louse. Changes have undoubtedly been made from time to time (1 have not had the opportunity of investigating them) in the form in which Votes have been presented. Votes have been consolidated and reduced in number; but what the extent of the power of a Minister in that direction is I am not prepared to say. The change in the present instance, I am bound to say, does seem of a somewhat sweeping nature. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury say that it was only resorted to as a means of meeting a great emergency which had undoubtedly arisen. As to this state of emergency and how it was brought about, that has been dealt with by the two right hon. Gentlemen, and it is not my business to say anything about it. There was undoubtedly considerable difficulty in getting through business within the proper time, and it was to meet this emergency on this special occasion only that this change was made. If there was any idea on the part of the Government, of this or any Government, to make any permanent change of a large and important character in the method of presenting Votes in Supply, I cannot help thinking that they would themselves consider it necessary to take the House into their confidence, and to afford the House an opportunity of
  1162
  expressing an opinion upon it. Such a course appears so proper and natural that I feel confident that this Government or any other Government would follow it. As regards this particular instance, it has, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, been treated as a case of emergency, and an emergency there undoubtedly was and that being so, it should not be regarded as a precedent.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he had a few questions to ask the Colonial Secretary in reference to one item of considerable importance which came under the sub-head "O 1, The Transvaal Concession, Land Settlement Commission, £7,800."He believed that an inquiry had been held as to the possibility of settling soldiers and others upon land in South Africa, and the questions he desired to ask were—what were the terms of reference to the Commission, who were the Commissioners, where did they hold their proceedings, did they go to South Africa, and did they hold any sittings there, did they examine witnesses there —what, in fact, they did there, and what conclusions did they arrive at? He supposed they had now returned to this country. He gathered from a reply of the right hon. Gentleman's that the Report had been submitted to Sir A. Milner for his comments, and those, no doubt, would be valuable; but inasmuch as the House was asked to vote £2.500 for the expenses of the Commission the House had a right to see the Report without delay. This question of land settlement called up many associations. In all countries and at all times the policy of dumping down persons (especially those who had recently been fighting against the late owners and occupants) upon land by the authority of a Government had led to a great deal of evil, and raised many grave misgivings. Land settlement was always a serious matter, but in South Africa at the present moment its seriousness was aggravated to a terrible degree. He had never been to South Africa, and was not sure whether that was not an advantage at the present time. But anyone who had read the history of South Africa, and had conversed with persons who had been missionaries or farmers or had occupied official positions in South Africa, as he

  1163
  had done ever since he had sat upon the South Africa Committee, would know that land settlement in South Africa was no new thing and had been not very successful in the past. Where the political element entered into the land settlement in South Africa there would be a state of thing's to which only the word "dangerous" could be applied. Had the Colonial Secretary seen a book on South Africa recently written by Mr. Dormer entitled "Vengeance as a Policy; Plea for a New Departure"? Mr. Dormer was formerly one of Mr. Cecil Rhodes's most intimate friends, but, like most respectable persons, had dropped Mr. Rhodes and all his works. In his book Mr. Dormer said—
  "The two cardinal concurrent aims of any policy worthy of practical statesmanship must be the conciliation of the Dutch and the reinforcement of the British element in the population."
  What seemed to be meant by land settlement was placing soldiers and others here and there to increase a particular racial element supposed by some people to be more loyal than another racial element. It was to be hoped that the soldier settlers would be of a different character from those whom they had seen in the streets going by the ridiculous name of yeomen. Everyone who knew country life, as he did, knew that the town-bred man picked up in the slums of our great cities was no good at all as a farmer or cultivator of the soil. They must have men who understood husbandry, the habits of animals —or what he would call nature—the peasantry, and not the little undersized starvelings they had seen decked out in khaki during the last few days, a discredit to the British Army. What was the Colonial Secretary's policy? He believed that the conclusion to which Mr. Dormer came further on in his book; would be a true one—
  "The most obvious means of attaining the end in view would be to make a settlement of loyal colonists on the land. If, however, it be the case—and this is the conclusion which is being slowly forced even upon those most reluctant to accept it—that suitable colonists are not likely to be forthcoming in adequate number; while it is, to say the least, doubtful whether the right sort of land in the right locality would be found,"
  and so on Where was it proposed to place these settlers in South Africa?

  1164
  The most likely districts had been taken up, especially in the Transvaal, by the only people who really could cultivate it in the proper sense of the term. Their environment had made the Boers what they were, and to send out English settlers from the slums to that land could only end in failure. This policy of trying to get people to try land cultivation had never been a more gigantic failure than in Rhodesia. He asked what the policy of the Government was in issuing the Commission; what had we got by it; and what were its proposals? He hoped the Colonial Secretary would be able to give some information which would allay the alarm which the proposal to send out these persons had created in certain districts. He objected to any of the money of the British taxpayer being used for so dangerous an experiment, and as a protest he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£893,316,' and insert '£893,216,' instead thereof."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That '£893,316' stand part of the Resolution."
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must point out that the hon. Member hes travelled somewhat beyond the limit of the Vote in entering into a, discussion as to what the policy of land settlement would be. The Vote before the House was for the Commission, and upon a Vote for the Commission it is not in order to discuss the future land settlement in South Africa.
  MR. DILLONasked whether it would not be in order to discuss the policy of appointing the Commission at all.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISremarked that he had only said what he did to draw some explanation of policy from the Colonial Secretary.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am glad to learn from you, Sir, that I am not expected, and, indeed, it would not be in order for

  1165
  me, to follow the hon. Gentleman in the somewhat discursive remarks with which he has introduced this Amendment. Therefore I suppose I need not do more than refer to his extraordinary statement to the effect that the men who, as Imperial Yeomanry, are going out to fight the battles of their country in South Africa, are little, undersized starvelings and a disgrace to the British Army.
  *MR. JOHN ELLIS: I said those whom we have seen in certain plaaes in London during the last few days.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: During the last few days! I should have thought. I think still, there is no other Member of the House who would repeat this statement, or who has been so unfortunate as the hon. Member in seeing the specimens of the new force whom he has seen. But, coming to the practical question, the hon. Gentleman asks what was the reference to this Commission. It was instructed to inquire into the possibility of a settlement for soldiers in South Africa, and subsequently the reference was extended to other employments besides the settlement on the land. The hon. Gentleman asks what was the composition of the Commission. It was composed of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, as chairman, and Mr. Southey, who. I believe, is a large and highly respected farmer at Middelburg, as second member. It was originally intended that General Plumer should be added to the Commission, but. owing to his being actively engaged in the war he was unable to take his share in the inquiry, which was there-fore, conducted by the two gentlemen I have named. I should have thought, before I heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that everyone was agreed on the point of principle that it was desirable, to possible, to settle those who desired to settle in South Africa on the land, and, in the words of the book from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, to "reinforce the British element" by that means. But as to the possibility of doing so the Government felt themselves to be very much in doubt. It was therefore necessary to make inquiry into the points which the hon.
  1166
  Gentleman himself has suggested as subjects for inquiry—namely, as to who would be the right men to be so settled, and as to whether any considerable number of soldiers, and not merely English, Scotch, or Irish soldiers, but those who have come from the colonies to assist us, should be settled. They also had to inquire whether there was land in existence which could be used for this purpose: whether it was the right sort of land or could be made the right sort of land by irrigation or other forms of improvement: what would be the cost of any scheme of settlement—in fact, a practical scheme was what we hoped the Commission would settle. Now the hon. Gentleman comes to this House and puts forward a statement which is entirely novel—that when the Government appoints a small Commission to inform it on an important question it is necessarily bound, immediately on the receipt of the Report, to present it to the House. There is no such rule or practice. Again and again it happens that a Commission is appointed to make inquiry, that a Report is produced for the information of the Government, and is not laid on the Table of the House or ever produced: and, in fact, it is a matter entirely in the discretion of the Government whether it should or should not be produced. In regard to the present matter, we have got a Report, which we think is a very informing Report, and for which we feel greatly indebted to my hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty and his colleague, who have taken an immense amount of pains and labour to produce it. They took a great deal of evidence, thee examined a great number of places for themselves, and have given us a great deal of information which is worthy of the most serious consideration. But, before we can form any policy of our own or make any communication to the House on the subject, we consider it necessary that we should consult Sir Alfred Milner. Considering the confidence which we at any rate, feel in Sir Alfred Milner, and considering the position which he occupies as Governor of the territories which. I think, are concerned, it seems to me perfectly absurd to take any other course. We have sent out a copy of the Report to Sir Alfred

  1167
  Milner, and I have said, in answer to questions of the hon. Gentleman and others, that as soon as we get his observations upon the Report we will consider whether it should be laid upon the Table of the House. If it would relieve the mind of the hon. Member, I would say that, as far as I can see at present, there can be no possible objection to the production of this Report. I do not think it would be wise to produce it at this particular moment, not only because we have not the advantage of any observations which Sir Alfred Milner may desire to make, but also because I do not think it would be prudent at this moment, before we have formed any idea ourselves as to what policy we ought to adopt, to indicate certain places in South Africa which are not at present in our possession as being places which are most suitable for a, scheme of this kind.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Does the Report recommend the further expenditure of money?
  MR.J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman is very inquisitive. He is endeavouring indirectly to get from me information which I have declined directly to give, and, with all respect to him. I cannot go further than I have gone. As soon as we get this Report back from Sir Alfred Milner we will consider—with every expectation of being able to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Gentleman—whether we can lay it on the Table of the House. We cannot go beyond that at the present time for the reasons I have given, and I think every reasonable man will consider them to be sufficient reasons.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is a very startling innovation of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says he will take into consideration whether he will ever let us see this Report.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My repartee to that is that we will take it into consideration whether we will pay for it. The practice of not laying Reports before the House seems to me to be a very
  1168
  strange one. You have got an interim Report from a Boiler Committee which discredits the efficacy of the whole British Navy, but you lay that upon the Table immediately, without waiting to decide whether you are going to remove the boilers or adopt a different make. The usual custom is to lay a Report upon the 'Table, and to say. "With regard to the Report before you, we have not had time to determine our policy." The Report is laid, and the Government take whatever time they like to consider the policy they will found upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken, and justly, of the competency of the Commissioners appointed. The hon. Member opposite has shown his capacity in dealing with the Navy Estimates, and I understand he was the principal member of that Commission. Why is it, then, the Government will not lay the conclusions of this Commission upon the Table of the House? I hope I am not too suspicious, but I venture to think that it is because the Report does not suit them or carry out the view of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the strong reinforcement of British influence there.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. That was a quotation which was used by the hon. Gentleman opposite. They were not my words, although I am quite ready to adopt them.
  *SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is quite enough for my purpose. We have heard much of this. It is a gigantic plan of creating British faggot-votes in South Africa. I do not know how that may be but I am sure that at any rate the hon. Member for South Belfast will approve of an Orange settlement.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: In the Orange Colony.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then the Orange Free State is to become an Orange colony in South Africa! I quite understand. But there are two sides to this question. To propound to the Dutch population, whom you desire to pacify, the notion that you are going to take land which may belong to them for the purpose of reinforcing British influence is not

  1169
  likely to lead to an early pacification. I Therefore the sooner we know what is the intention of the Government, and what is the Report of this Commission on the subject, the better, because while the matter is left in doubt it is a source of the greatest irritation to the Boer population. Nothing can be more irritating to a people than to know that you are going to introduce among them—they do not know in what numbers—a population which is. I will not say hostile, but at any rate alien to themselves, with different interests and different objects. It is impossible to conceive anything more dangerous than that. I will not go into the general policy of the settlement to be made, assisted, as I understand, by the State. There was an experiment made within recent years with the Scotch crofters in Canada, but it was not at all satisfactory. Many of them have been entire failures, and the money has not been repaid. If you are going into a large scheme of settlement for the purpose of increasing the British possession of land, and consequently diminishing the Dutch possession of land, it seems to me that you are quite unnecessarily introducing a factor of racial irritation. To do this in the interests of one race and against the interest of another is a most unwise and dangerous policy, and one which will make the hopes of pacification, which are distant enough already, more distant still. Therefore, if, as I conjecture, the Report of this Commission is adverse to any proposal of this kind, the sooner we have, it produced in order to remove this suspicion on the part of the Dutch population the better, for it would do more than anything else to reassure the Dutch people and the Boers against the fear of confiscation and expropriation for racial purposes. The Government have a Report of competent people upon this subject, and we are as entitled to know the result as they are, or as Sir Alfred Milner is. Let Sir Alfred Milner express his opinion upon the Report; let the Government express their opinion upon the Report; but for Heaven's sake let the House of Commons know what that Report is and, above all let the people whose interests are to he affected by it know what the Report, drawn up by men who have seen South Africa, is. We have been told that we must trust the man on the spot, Well,
  1170
  the correspondence recently laid upon the Table has shown that it is the man on the spot whom we do not trust. I should like to have the opinion of the Secretary of State on this Report, although he is not the man on the spot. I should like to have the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who sits beside him (the Secretary to the Admiralty), who has been to South Africa and examined this question, as to what the Report says. It is a, most extraordinary thing to ask the House of Commons to pay for a Report which perhaps they will never see at all. And when the Government have got the opinion of Sir Alfred Milner, what do they propose to do with it? Will they drop their own Report? I have never seen the Report of a Commission presented with the comments of an outsider upon it. It is an extraordinary thing that the Government, after sending out a Commission of this kind, should ask Sir Alfred Milner whether the House of Commons should ever he allowed to see the Report. That is not a proper Parliamentary practice, and I shall certainly vote against it.
  MR. COHEN: One would imagine from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he already knew the contents of this Report. At any rate, he has spoken as though he did, and he has condemned the recommendations he imagines it to contain. But the right hon. Gentleman appeared to contradict himself towards the end of his speech. My right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary gave as reason for not laying the Report on the Table at the present moment, that the Government wished to consult Sir Alfred Milner. In my judgment, with all respect to the Colonial Secretary, I think the opinion of Sir Alfred Milner will be of even higher authority than that of the right hon. Gentleman himself on this subject. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite complained of the Government desiring to consult Sir Alfred Milner, and then, before he sat down, he found fault with the Government because on another occasion they did not follow a recommendation of Sir Alfred Milner. Such a line of argument seems to me to be both inconsistent and inconsequential. There are many precedents for a Government referring a matter of such im-

  1171
  portance to one so particularly competent to give advice.
  "SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We do not say that they should not consult Sir Alfred Milner before they determine what to do upon the Report. That is not my point. Of course they may. They may consult him as to what they should do a year hence if necessary. All I say is that they should not consult him as to whether we should see the Report.
  MR. COHEN: I did not understand my right hon. friend to say he was consulting Sir Alfred Milner as to whether or not ho should lay the Report on the Table. He is going to decide that when he gets Sir Alfred Milner's remarks. That is a very wise decision, and it is not at all the same thing as the right hon. Gentleman opposite made out. I think my right hon. friend is wise in withholding the Report for the present, so that concurrently with laying it on the Table, which he has announced his present intention of doing, ho may be able to give the House the conclusions at which, fortified by the advice of Sir Alfred Milner, the Government have arrived.
  MR. CAINE: I am sorry to infer from the statement of the Colonial Secretary that there really is no intention on his part to divulge the contents of this Report?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure whet her I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. Did he say I was not going to publish the Report?
  MR. CAINE: I said I inferred it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then the hon. Member has no light whatever to make that inference. There is every probability that it will be produced as soon as we get Sir Alfred Milner's reply.
  MR. CAINE: I am glad to hear it because it will save me the necessity of making any long speech. This is not a mere Departmental Committee, but a Commission, and it is customary when a Department appoints a Commission that the Report of that Commission should in one way or another be made
  1172
  public. I represent a constituency which takes a very great interest in South Africa. We have in the mining parts of Cornwall a larger number of persons interested in Cape Colony and the Transvaal than any other constituency in the United Kingdom, and this Report has been looked for with great interest. The Cornish miner is also a bit of a farmer, and many are thinking that now the country- is conquered and there is a likelihood of a settled Government, and all the rest of it, they may be able to get a bit of land in the Transvaal, and by working the land during a part of the year and earning good wages in the mines during the other part, they will be able to make a very comfortable livelihood for themselves. Many of them are looking for this Report to bepublished, and I trust the Colonial Secretary will make some communication, for the sake not only of Cornwall, but also of the rest of the country with regard to the future of these colonies. Another reason for issuing this Report is that a very great number of those who have enlisted or are now enlisting in the various forces for South Africa have done and are doing so with the belief that when the war is over and they have completed their service some decent sort of settlement will he found for them in the country they have helped to conquer. I believe that this Report will show that there is really no prospect of land settlement for these men, and it is most important that the Report should be published so that we may know exactly what the Commission have done, what wit nesses they have examined, and what are the conclusions they have drawn, and I what recommendations they have made.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I take this opportunity of raising this question in view of the fact that the Colonial Secretary a few nights ago, in his most honeyed tones, disclaimed any intention of attempting another plantation of Ulster in South Africa. Let me call the attention of the House to the peculiar position in which it is placed with regard to this Report. In the first place I regard the issue of the Commission at all as an extremely serious blunder. I venture to say that the issue of this Commission and, above all, the

  1173
  terms in which it was issued, and I may say, without any disrespect to the Secretary to the Admiralty, the personality of the Chairman of the Commission, all, I think, had a very serious effect in the prolongation of the unhappy and terrible struggle in South Africa. If this House had been asked to sanction the issue of this Commission, I am perfectly sure many Members would have resisted it as something of the most dangerous and serious consequence. But the Commission was issued without consulting the House of Commons, and now, after the Commission has taken place, after it has heard evidence and made its Report, when we come to deal with the cost of the Commission, the House is not even given an opportunity of discussing the policy of the Commission, and up to the present there is no promise that we shall ever see the evidence or the Report. The House had no control over the Commission when it was appointed, and it is to have no supervision of it now it has reported. The Colonial Secretary says, "Oh, but you can vote against the money for the Commission"; in other words, the full liberty of Members of the House of Commons is preserved when they can vote in a minority against the payment of money already spent. I never heard a proposition that put the House of Commons in a position of such ridiculous and absurd futility as this proposition of the Colonial Secretary. What is the statement of the Colonial Secretary? He docs not tell us what the Report is. He does not even give us a glimpse of it. He confines himself to two propositions. First, when I raised this question before, He said we might relieve our minds, as nothing like the plantation of Ulster was contemplated. So far so good. Now he says it would be imprudent for the Government to publish a Report with regard to what would be done with lands which are not yet in our possession. That is a most sinister observation. In other words, the lands which are now held and occupied by the Boers, against whom this country is fighting, are to be part of the spoil which the Government contemplated handing over to the British troops after the war. The Colonial Secretary says it would be imprudent to publish this Report of the Commission stating what was to be done with the territory not now in our possession.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be most happy to give a full explanation on that point. The idea that we contemplated taking land which is not ours, except by purchase in the ordinary way, is a suspicion which has only entered into the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have no intention whatever of expropriating owners or of confiscating their property, or of obtaining property for this purpose in any way other than as we should obtain it supposing the thing were to occur in this country.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think this debate has been justified by that admission at any rate. The debate is fully justified if it elicited only that statement from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It never entered into my mind until I heard the hon. Gentleman suggest it, that anybody would suspect such a thing.
  MR.T. P. O'CONNOR: I put this to the House. A Commission is appointed, with the hon. Member for West Belfast—a gentleman who with all his ability, is not known for particular sweetness and gentleness and amiability to his political opponents—a Commission is appointed, under the chairmanship of this gentleman, this violent Imperialist, for the settlement of the soldiers in South Africa after the war. I say the only possible interpretation that the world—and especially the Boers, who are not very trustful, and who have no reason to have great confidence in the permanency of their position, from which they have been driven three times in succession by British forces—could put upon such a Commission is that the English soldiers were, to be settled upon the land taken from defeated or conquered Boers. I express my gratitude to the hon. Member who initiated the debate, which has brought from the Colonial Secretary for the first time—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: For the first time—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No. The hon. Gentleman said something about the Ulster plantation the other night,

  1175
  and I told him then that he might rest assured that nothing of the kind was contemplated in South Africa.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The point to which we have got is this: Is the Report going to be published or not? The right hon. Gentleman set up a Commission without consulting the House of Commons. He now comes to the Mouse and demands the money to pay for the Commission, and at the same time refuses to give the slightest value for the money—namely, the evidence and the Report. The question is, Ought this Report to be published or not? I hold that every day the publication of the Report of the Commission is delayed is a day of prolongation of the war in South Africa. We do not know what the Secretary to the Admiralty reported. The golden chain of silence is flung upon him by the Colonial Secretary. He is not usually so diffident in the expression of his views, but to-night and on the last occasion the question was under discussion the Colonial Secretary did not allow the hon. Gentleman to break that golden silence in which on rare occasions in his Parliamentary career he has taken refuge. Let us know if it is true that the Secretary to the Admiralty reported that South Africa was no place for those men; that all the talk about splendid positions and opportunities was but mere imagination; and that, as matter of fact, there is in South Africa nothing but the mining camp for the miner and the veldt for the Boer. That would have a great effect in this country, as well as in South Africa, and would do a great deal to bring the war to an end. What was the fact in recruiting for the Yeomanry? Many of them are going out not merely for the purpose of fighting your battles, but with the intention and belief of finding a new career when the war was at an end. 1s it not cruel, if in the pocket of the Colonial Secretary there is a Report against the possibility of all this, that young fellows should be allowed to go out buoyed up with hopes and fallacies of this kind? On the other hand, is it not cruel to the Boers, if this Report clearly shows that the Government do not intend to confiscate the lands, to allow them to go on fighting in the belief that it is their lands they are fighting for? I think we
  1176
  have proved conclusively that this motion has been justified, and that the House should press again and again until they get the early publication of this most interesting and vitally important Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I venture to point out to the House that this is not a very profitable way of spending the evening when there are questions of real substance and importance to be raised, and I suggest that we might now proceed to a division. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. DILLON: We were not allowed to say a word on this in Committee, we were closured.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman may not share my view, but surely I may express the view that this is not a question of such substance as should deserve to occupy much more time, when there are other questions demanding consideration? My reasons for that belief are very shortly stated. The indignation of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is founded upon two beliefs—first, that the Report of this Commission is adverse to the policy of the Government, and that therefore the Government are endeavouring to conceal it, and, secondly, that it is part of the scheme of the Government to forcibly expropriate the Boer population, and to substitute in their place soldiers or other emigrants from tin's country. Both those beliefs are entire misconceptions. My right hon. friend refuses to say whether he will or will not publish this Report. There is nothing contrary to precedent in that. There are endless Reports of Commissions which have never seen the light. I do not think it probable that this Report will be added to them. But it is not fair to find fault with my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary for refusing to give any answer other than that which he has given—namely, that he will not in the present state of affairs make that Report public. We pledge ourselves, however, that the beliefs which have aroused the indignation of hon. Gentlemen opposite have absolutely no foundation at all. If they had a foundation, no doubt they would justify

  1177
  some of the anger which has been poured upon our heads, and no doubt they would provoke a great deal of fear in South Africa. But I am sorry that even the suspicion of them has found expression in the House. Owing to the strangely exaggerated and truncated versions of our debates which reach South Africa, the suspicion of hon. Gentlemen opposite may reach Boer ears as if they represented the real facts of the case. They do not represent the truth of the matter. If then, hon, Gentlemen opposite are to continue this debate, at all events let them not do so under the erroneous impression that any such act of suicidal policy as the compulsory confiscation of Boer lands in South Africa is contemplated by this Government.
  MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman told us or we gathered from him, that he rose with a double object—first, to put an end to what he considers an unprofitable discussion, and, secondly, to remove what he described as groundless suspicions. I cannot understand how, if those were the purposes, he had in view, the right hon. Gentleman did not perceive that there was one simple and efficient way of securing his end—namely, by answering the appeal which has been made by producing this Report. If we obtained from the Government a promise that the Report would be produced within a reasonable time and laid upon the Table of the House, so that Parliament, which is now voting the money for the Commission, could, before the close of the session, have some opportunity of considering whether this was a legitimate and justifiable expenditure, I think we should be very well satisfied. But the matter really does not end with the rights and usages of the House of Commons in relation to the expenditure of money. It has been pointed out over and over again that there are two sets of people whose minds are agitated so long as the contents of this Report are not disclosed. On the one hand, you have the Boer farmer in South Africa, who may be, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, under a complete misconception. The Boer farmer, rightly or wrongly, is in a state of
  1178
  apprehension as to whether or not his land is going to be taken from him. On the other hand, you have the soldiers who are being recruited day by day and sent out to South Africa from this country, many of whom go out in the belief that they will there find homes and means of livelihood. Surely, as long as you have that state of apprehension, suspicion, hope, and expectation, you have a condition of unsettlement which it is most undesirable to perpetuate, and to which the production of this Report would at once put an end. I confess I have never heard a stronger ease made out for the presentation of a document which is in all its essential characteristics a public ' document, and I earnestly hope the Government will put an end to this debate, as they can do if they please, by promising to produce this Report.
  *MR. LAMBTON: I think there is a very obvious reason why this Report should not be produced to the House. I am not in the secrets of the Commission, and I do not know the contents of the Report, but if there is any recommendation as to the acquisition of tracts of land in South Africa it is most undesirable that the Report should be laid upon the Table of the House at the present moment. We have heard a great deal from the other side of the House about the influence of the millionaires and the land speculators in South Africa. The Colonial Secretary is perfectly right in refusing to produce the Report now, because if any other course were taken it-would very likely strengthen the hands of those land speculators, and enable them to gain possession of the land before the Government have the opportunity of so doing, and thus raise the price this country will have to pay. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth talks a great deal about Boer susceptibilities, but he never appears to think of English susceptibilities. There are many English and loyal colonists in South Africa whose susceptibilities ought to be regarded just as much as those of the Boers and the Dutch. Sixty years ago in the settlement of Canada, there were the same racial susceptibilities as now exist in South Africa, but the men who were

  1179
  the Liberal statesmen of those days, and who then settled Canada, did not entirely give in to the French susceptibilities. Their plan was to settle English men upon the land, to produce English interests, and to regard English susceptibilities in Canada. I therefore think that the Members of the Opposition who speak only of the Boer susceptibilities are not carrying out the true traditions of the old Liberal party.
  MR. BROADHURST: I do not think the hon. Member who has just spoken has built up a very strong case for the Government withholding this Report. Our case is that this is a public Commission, paid for out of public money, and that this House, which has to vote the money, has the first title to see the Report in all its purity, before it is doctored in South Africa With regard to the Yeomanry, it is pretty well known that the greater part are not yeomen at all. Most of them know nothing whatever of farming. You might as well put a farmer into a druggist's shop as to put many of these so-called yeomen on farms in South Africa, or elsewhere, ft is admitted that many of them had never touched a horse in their lives, and they probably would scarcely know a cow from a bullock. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the difficulty is to get them to remain in South Africa; they are wanting to come home. It is the same also with the time-expired soldiers.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is getting away from the question of this Commission.
  MR. BROADHURST: I was led into that digression by the fact that this Commission was appointed to consider what inducements, if any, could be held out to Englishmen to remain in South Africa as residents. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there is no intention of taking the land from the Boers and giving it to a foreign people, all of us here would accept the right hon. Gentleman's word of honour. But what reliance can we expect the Boers to place upon his statement? The Boers remember the Prime Minister's declaration that we desired neither territory nor gold-fields, a declaration which was
  1180
  followed by the annexation of the two Republics. Therefore, if they doubt and disbelieve the right hon. Gentleman's word we cannot be much surprised. We have a right to the production of this Report immediately on or before payment for it. My object in rising was to appeal to the Secretary to the Admiralty, the Chairman of the Commission, to give the House some further information on the matter. It is most unusual for him to be muzzled by anyone, and if, with his great power of lucidity and condensation, he would give us a ten minutes résumé of the leading features of the Report, we should listen with great interest, and probably reward the Government by an early decision on this Vote. Neither the Colonial Secretary nor the Leader of the House has given any precedents for this procedure, so that I presume there are none. I remember the appointment of a great many Commissions in my time, but never have I known one the Report of which was sent round the world for the observations of people in no way connected with it before being presented to Parliament. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to return to the ways of his early youth, and give the House some information. It was not always that we wen1 so anxious to hear him, but to-night we are dying for him to speak. It is a great opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to distinguish himself, and I sincerely trust he will not miss it.
  Attention called to the fact that folly Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he could not understand the Government appointing this Commission, because it did not seem to him that a large part of the Orange River Colony or the Transvaal were yet fit to go into. Certainly if a gentleman in the position of the Secretary to the Admiralty had gone into the portions of the Transvaal where soldiers might be settled, he would not have returned to tell the tale. Of what value then could be the Report of such a Commission? An hon. Gentleman had said that the Government had taken a wise

  1181
  step in suppressing the Report, because it they had done so millionaires and land speculators would have taken advantage of it and would have bought up the land. For his part he did not think there were many millionaires, who were not loved by the Boers, who would buy land there, He did not gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman what reason he had for entertaining the proposals of this Commission. This Commission differed from ordinary Commissions, inasmuch as it did not consist of experts. The only expert was a farmer who came from Middleburg, and who might be a great authority on the method of settling people on the land; but could anyone say that the Secretary to the Admiralty had a large amount of agricultural experience? Was Sir Alfred Milner consulted on the point as to whether that hon. Gentleman should be sent out on the Commission? If so, he surely might have been able to see the Report of the Commission before it was sent home to the right hon. Gentleman. But if Sir A. Milner did not see the Report before, why should it be sent out to him before being placed on the Table of the House? Why should Sir A. Milner be placed before the House of Commons? The Report would not alter by a single iota the policy which Sir A. Milner would adopt. He could hardly believe that Sir A. Milner had been consulted as to the selection of the Commissioners for so important a purpose as that stated. The Secretary of State for the Colonies said that this was a very informing Commission, and that the Report was informing. But what could the Secretary to the Admiralty know of agriculture or irrigation in South Africa? He would rather take his opinion on Army and Navy matters. All sorts of conditions had to be considered in South Africa—climatic conditions, and so forth—and a very strong Commission should have been appointed. Why was it necessary to appoint a Commission at all? Why could not Sir- Alfred Milner have interviewed farmers in South Africa and obtained advice upon this question for the Government? Such a course would have obviated the necessity of sending out the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty at all. But the Commission having been appointed, and having reported, he could not under-
  1182
  stand why the Report was not laid on the Table. If the Report was one which, would help the Government to settle soldiers and others in South Africa he failed to see why it was not published. For his part he believed this policy of settlement on the land would not be a success, and it was probably owing to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Navy also being of that opinion that the Report was not presented to the House. The scheme of the Colonial Secretary did not commend itself to the colonies, who looked with distrust upon any scheme of settling the colonial forces in South Africa. The colonies wanted to retain their men in their own colonies. The opinion of the Boers upon the appointment of this Commission and the settlement of their lands was also a matter worthy of consideration. He thought that the country had a right to know, as they had to pay, what it was they were paying for, and that the Report of the Commission ought to be presented to the House. That being so he supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe Division.
  MR. DILLON: When the Secretary of State for the Colonies interrupted the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, he said the Government had no idea of expropriating property or acquiring land in the two Colonies, as you call them, but which we call the two Republics, except in the ordinary way of purchase; and my hon. friend the Member for Scotland Division seemed to be to some extent satisfied, or, at least, to have his fears allayed, by the statement. I confess, Sir, that that statement had no such effect on my mind, because, in my opinion, the purpose and method by which land is to be got, or by which the Government expect to get land in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, is not by expropriation or confiscation after the pattern of the Ulster settlement in Ireland, when the inhabitants were swept out of the country, treated like wild beasts, and deprived of their lands. The Government know they have no need of having recourse to that system, and, for my part, I confess that the interruption of the Secretary of Slate for the Colonies had for me a most sinisterand significant meaning when taken in connection with the recently published Papers giving particu-

  1183
  lars of the negotiations between Louis Botha and Lord Kitchener. When we hear the Secretary of State for the Colonies declaring that the Government has no intention of confiscating the lands of the Boer farmers, but intends to acquire them by the ordinary machinery of purchase, we are reminded in the most unpleasant way of what the Secretary of State for the Colonies did when, in his telegram to Sir Alfred Milner, he substituted the word "loans." What, I ask, was the object of offering these men, ruined by your policy, burned out of houses and homes, and their property carried away—what was the object. I say again, of offering them loans?
  *MR. SPEAKER,Order, order! The hon. Member is now criticising correspondence which has no bearing on the question.
  MR. DILLON: I am only criticising it in so far as it bears on the observations of the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he said it was not proposed to acquire the land of the Boers except by methods of purchase. I say that is not what he has provided for in dictating to Lord Kitchener the, terms and the machinery by which he will have these unfortunate Boer farmers at his mercy.
  *MR. SPEAKER: These references to the correspondence in question do not bear on the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman, that if the lands were taken for the purpose of settling others on them, those lands would be bought in the ordinary way by purchase or compensation. The two things are quite dissimilar.
  MR. DILLON: I shall not press that point further in view of your ruling, Sir, but I may remark that it seems to me that this question of loans gives the Secretary of State for the Colonies the opportunity of acquiring the lands, and I think it is most natural that this rather extraordinary correction of Lord Kitchener's offer should have arisen in my mind when I heard the right hon. Gentleman making the interruption to which I have alluded. The point which I chiefly desire to emphasise is the impolicy of appointing such a Commission
  1184
  at all. I think that is a point that has not been sufficiently dwelt upon, and I say further that the full effects of the appointment of that Commission are aggravated by the withholding of the Report. If we had that Report we would know whether it was in favour of or against these settlements. If it is against the settlements it would have a considerable effect in allaying the suspicions of the Boers and in promoting peace. If, however, as I strongly suspect, this Report is in favour of these settlements, then I think the House of Commons should have an immediate opportunity of discussing it and the policy it embodies. I hold, further, that the appointment of this Commission while the war was still in progress was a monstrous and most iniquitous blunder. It was a policy calculated, if not intended, to prolong the war. It appears to me that that is so clear that it requires no argument to support the contention. In this case you have to deal with a people whose history is very singular and peculiar. This is not the first time their lands have been taken away. This is not the first time they have been driven into the wilderness, driven too by the very Government with which they now have to deal. And when they hoar of a. Commission sent out to investigate whether it is possible to plant English soldiers in their country—a Commission presided over by a prominent representative of an Ulster Protestant constituency—I say even if these people were much less suspicious the natural conclusion in their minds would be that the policy about to be put in force was a policy of confiscation, a policy like that which was practised in Ireland with such disastrous results for the people of Ireland.
  It may be thought by those who have not studied the question as carefully as I have that this is an exaggerated view to take, but let me remind the House of one circumstance, which is of dramatic and picturesque interest in this matter, and which gives colour, consistency, and confirmation to the views I have expressed. This is the circumstance to which I refer. Commandant Louis Botha is probably the one man of all others amongst the Boers who is most inclined

  1185
  to make peace on honourable lines, and put an end to this disastrous war. Mrs. Botha, who is acting as the emissary of your generals in South Africa, and carrying on the peace negotiations, is a grand-niece of the Irish rebel, Robert Emmet, and do you suppose that Commandant Louis Botha, her husband, and the other Boer leaders are not. through her familiar with every detail of the history of Ireland, and of the ruin of our country by the very methods you are proposing to put in force in the Transvaal and Orange Free State? They know what you did for Ireland—the tyranny you introduced, the confiscation you practised. In this respect I may say these men have lived, as it were, in an Irish atmosphere; and when you send out to represent you on this Commission the Member for an Ulster constituency, what conclusion can they come to hut that you are going to treat them as you treated Ireland? What can you expect these men to think if you are going to inflict upon the Transvaal and the Orange Free State a system which has plunged Ireland for hundreds of years into religious and political animosities? No matter what this Report contains. I impugn the policy of the appointment of this Commission, and I say deliberately, that in my opinion the appointment of this Commission, and its secret Report, is in a considerable measure responsible for the prolongation of the war. One of the conditions put forward by Louis Botha in his interview with Lord Kitchener was that there should be three millions of money put into the work of restoring the destruction you have perpetrated in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The object of that was of course, to enable the people to hold their homes. Lord Kitchener agreed to that, but the right hon. Gentleman, who has this Report in his pocket. would not agree to it. Is it not absurd to suppose that Botha, when he reads these proceedings, can come to any other conclusion than that the reason why Lord Kitchener was overruled was because this Commission, presided over by the Member for West Belfast, would have to be set aside if Lord Kitchener got his way in the negotiations with Botha? I say this action of appointing this Commission was a policy
  1186
  calculated to have the effect of prolonging the war. The Secretary for the Colonies took a very wobbling position upon this Report. "First he would and then he would not." He declared there was no obligation whatever for the Government to publish this Report. Then, when pressed, he said it would not be published until he had Sir Alfred Milner's opinion—I wish he had more respect for that opinion—upon the terms of peace. But what in the name of commonsense has Sir Alfred Milner's opinion upon this Report to do with its publication? I say it is an outrage to think that the House of Commons is to be denied this most important Report, bearing upon the policy of this Empire and upon the war, until Sir A. Milner gives his opinion.
  The First Lord of the Treasury stated that the only thing that made him uneasy was the account of this debate that might he sent out to South Africa. Well, Sir, there will be a great deal of suspicion, and the account of these transactions will confirm the suspicion in the minds of Botha, De Wet, and the Boer farmers that there is some monstrous effort being made to rob them of their land. But the Boer leaders do not look to the speeches of Ministers qua Ministers. They look to the men who have directed the policy of England ever since the Jameson Raid, not to the speeches of a Colonial Secretary who three years ago declared that it would be not only unwise, but immoral, to put pressure on the President of the Transvaal, but who, although he had made that declaration, within two years engaged all the forces of the Empire in crushing the forces of that State. So the Boer farmers and their leaders naturally look to the men who in the past have shown that they could make their policy prevail, and when they see in the press in South Africa, and the press here controlled by Rhodes and Company, over and over again telegrams announcing that when this war is over three-fourths of the farmers of the Transvaal will be ruined men, and will be forced to part with their farms at any price offered by the Government, and that then these farms should be given to British soldiers—then. Sir, I think I am justified in saying that suspicion on

  1187
  their part is not unnatural. I must repeat these words—that three-fourths of the farmers will be ruined men, and must part with their farms for any price that is offered by the Government. That is the policy that has been adopted by the party opposite. That is the policy avowed by the Rhodesian press in this country and South Africa. That is the policy that has made these men desperate, and J say deliberately that when the Secretary of State for the Colonies refuses to confirm even the offer of Lord Kitchener, in view of the quotations which I have referred to, and in view of the cheers we have listened to, small wonder if Louis Botha and his men should say "Let us die with our arms in our hands, with as many Englishmen around us as we can kill, rather than be outcasts and beggars in the land." [A laugh.] I accept that laugh as good testimony of the spirit in which some hon. Members deal with this subject. I have said outcasts in the land. I repeat, is it any wonder that a soldier and gentleman like Louis Botha would prefer to die with arms in his hands and as many Englishmen lying round him as he could kill, rather than be a beggar in the land which his fathers won from the wilderness, and which they themselves love and are defending with a gallantry which the whole annals of the human race can hardly surpass.
  MR. GEORGE WHLITELEYsaid that in the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman there were matters of great weight and gravity to be debated and discussed. The object of the right hon. Gentleman was apparently to dissipate what he believed to be the erroneous views which were held by the hon. Members opposed to him in this policy. If he desired to dissipate any views which he believed to be wrong there was one method of doing so—by producing the Report of the Commission which the Mouse was so desirous to have. If he was not prepared to produce the actual Report, the right hon. Gentleman might at least have informed the House of the gist of it. He might have submitted a synopsis of it, so that the minds of hon. Members might be satisfied. No blame had been
  1188
  attached to the Government for their action in transmitting the Report to Sir Alfred Milner before proceeding to act on it, but they did blame the Government for refusing to take the House into their confidence about the matter at a time when the Report was being bandied about between London and South Africa. The House was in a very difficult position, as was the Government, with regard to this matter. The Government sent out a Commission well qualified to deal with such questions as might crop up, the president of which was so much in the confidence of the Government that he was elevated to an important post in the Government in his absence from this country. The hon. Gentleman made a Report to the Government which was no doubt a very able one, but before the Government presented it to the House it had to be sent out to Sir Alfred Milner in order that he might dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the Report of the hon. Gentleman. The Government had placed the House in a, very undignified position, and put a stigma upon the efforts of the hon. Gentleman. What incentive would the hon. Member in the future possess to undertake such labours if after all his trouble his Report might never see the daylight in the first place, and be held back from the House, or might be presented in a mutilated form. The debate upon this question had, in his opinion, been justified. The House had not obtained an inkling as to the suggestions which the Report contained, except that it contained some scheme of purchase. No one would quarrel with any scheme of purchase, but he would like to know who it was that was going to purchase. Were the men who were now promenading the streets in khaki going to purchase the land. Judging from their style he did not think they had the funds to do so, and if they were not to purchase the land who was? Was the unfortunate British capitalist going to purchase the land? These were matters upon which the country had a right to be informed. One hon. Member had alluded to the physique, stamina and hardness of the pseudo-Yeomanry now being sent out to South Africa. At a time when we were trying to attract men to the Army to do this work in South Africa, it was advisable to present an

  1189
  attractive scheme, so that the farm labourers of this country—the bona fide veomen—would be attracted. If the Government were prepared to produce a scheme they should boldly say what their proposals were, and if they had done so, and showed that they were desirous of meeting in some form the desires of the House of Commons, they would have staved off the debate which was taking place, and have been able to deal with more important matters.
  MR. LLOYD -GEORGEpointed out that the Government were alone responsible for the present debate and its prolongation, because on the last occasion when information was asked on the point the Colonial Secretary, who refused to say whether there was a Report prepared at all, within a, few minutes of the question being raised moved the closure. Here was a Commission of great importance, which had cost nominally £2,500, but the actual cost of which Would be something like £20,000,000, which according to the right hon. Gentleman had prepared a Report containing valuable information with regard to the settlement of soldiers in South Africa. Yet this document was withheld from the very body which represented the people of England, and which had eventually to find the money to carry out the recommendations of the Report. It was part of the policy of treating the House of Commons with disdain. We had a new constitutional theory now. Sir Alfred Milner was the latest importation into our constitutional theory. Last week it was the House of Lords which was first in receiving information, and the House of Commons nowhere. This week it was Sir Alfred Milner and the right hon. Gentleman who were first in regard to this important information, and the House of Commons nowhere. Step by step the House of Commons was being gradually lowered in the constitutional and political scale. Soon the people's chamber would be wiped out altogether, and the Government would be carrying out a policy of nominating an executive council to carry out the dictates of the Colonial Secretary, or rather of the Cabinet. He called the attention of the House to the state of the Front Ministerial
  1190
  Bench. There were two occupants of it who knew what the Report contained—the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary to the Admiralty. The former was absent, and the latter had gone as far towards the boundary which divided the House from its precincts as he possibly could. He was muzzled—he was not allowed to say a word, he was only allowed to laugh. The laughter and jeers which they had heard during the previous speech from the Ministerial Benches were very significant. He was not at all sure whether the whole meaning of the Report could not be evolved from those sneers. The House was not to be told what the Report contained. This was the first time the Report of a Commission of this importance had been withheld from the knowledge of the House. [At this point Mr. BALFOUR took his seat,] At last the House was getting a responsible Minister to take part in the proceedings. He feared, however, it was not the First Lord of the Treasury's interest in the subject which had drawn him to the House—it was much more likely to be an intention to terminate the discussion. An indication of the real value of the Report was given by the Colonial Secretary when he explained that the Commission inquired about places for the settlement of English soldiers which were not in our possession. Where were these places? In the possession of the Boers—in parts of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony that we had not yet ever penetrated? He had heard about cooking a hare before it was caught, but the Colonial Secretary was cooking the hare before it had even been seen! It was no wonder that the Colonial Secretary showed small keenness to issue the Report. The real reason was that the, right hon. Gentleman must be beginning to doubt the wisdom of his policy in appointing the Commission. His reluctance to publish the Report was its condemnation. A more unwise, a more unfortunate, a more reckless act than the appointment of this Commission had never been perpetrated in South Africa even by the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was very solemn in his appeals to the Opposition not to say anything

  1191
  which might reach the ears of the Boers. I The appeal should have been addressed to the colleague who sat next to him—the Colonial Secretary. It was not the speeches of individual Members of the House that did the mischief and the evil—it was the acts of the Government. Which had the greatest weight among the Boers, the speech of a humble Member below the gangway, or an act under the Seal of the Colonial Office, which appointed a Commission to inquire whether the Government could settle soldiers upon the farms of the Boers in South Africa? The Boers had heard of the Commission, because it was appointed, as was everything that was done by the Colonial Secretary, with a flourish of trumpets. It was one of the right hon. Gentleman's impulses to do a cheap and popular thing, which had from time to time created so much mischief. It had been suggested by the papers supporting the Colonial Secretary that the farms ought to be divided amongst the yeomen. In one journal an article was headed, "The Spoils for the Victors"—it was a recommendation from beginning to end in favour of confiscating the property of "these rebels." If the Government wished to encourage the Boers and provoke them to prolong the war to the utmost they could do so in no better way than by such foolish, such indiscreet acts as the appointment of this Settlement Commission. The mere statement of the Colonial Secretary that we should buy out the Boers was no answer to their anxiety for the safety of their homesteads. The right hon. Gentleman had denuded their country, depleted their farms, burnt their homes, and now proposed to buy; them out! What was there that would in the slightest degree make these people believe that our intention was not to turn them out? The result of the Colonial Secretary's refusal to publish the Report would be that the suspicious nature of the Boers, of which so much had been heard, would be stirred to its depths, and that the war would be prolonged for a longer and more inde-
  finite period. The right hon. Gentle man ought not only to publish the Report but also to state whether he was going to act upon it.
  MR. CAWLEYstated that, having travelled through the Transvaal, he was able to form a fair idea as to the nature of the country, and in his opinion—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the probability of success or failure of a scheme of settlement in the Transvaal.
  MR. CAWLEYdesired merely to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of telling the British public the truth about the country. If this Report were published, it would doubtless save a great number of the yeomen and others who were going out to South Africa from dire disappointment. Before the war commenced a certain portion of the British press incited the people of this country to war by making out that the Transvaal was a sort of E1 Dorado for farmers. It was a peculiar thing that the people who knew least about farming always thought that they knew most, and the greater number of the yeomen, who had no real knowledge of farming—
  *MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was again entering into the policy of such a scheme of settlement.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid he would merely ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, and give an epitome of the Report, so that the British public might not go out to South Africa, only to meet with disappointment.
  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, 193;.Noes, 118. (Division List No. 98.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Arnold-Forster, Hush O.

  Bagot, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Austin, Sir John

  Baldwin, Alfred

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hain, Edward

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bigwood, James

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bluudell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mdd'x

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Rasch, Major Frederic Curne

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bull, William James

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hope,J F(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Howard, Capt. J (Kent, Favers.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenh'm)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Round, James

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

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'l)

  Kenyon Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chapman, Edward

  Keswick, William

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Knowles, Lees

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Smith, H C (North'mb).Tynes'de

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stock, James Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Stroyan, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dimsdale, Sir JosephCockfield

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E.

  Faber, George Denison

  Maxwell. Rt. HnSir HE (Wigt'n)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriessh.)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Middlemore, John T.

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Milward, Col. Victor

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Finch, George H.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  William's, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Garfit, William

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Colliding, Edward Alfred

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Nicholson, William Graham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)

  Brigg, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ambrose, Robert

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Asher, Alexander

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burns, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Burt, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Black, Alexander William

  Caine, William Sproston

  Cremer, William Randal

  Blake, Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Cullman, J.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Boyle, James

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Delany, William

  1194

  1195

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford)

  Dillon, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Levy, Maurice

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Dully, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duncan, James H.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rigg, Richard

  Ellis, John Edward

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Fenwick, Charles.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Field, William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Demott, Patrick

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Sinclair, Capt. Jn.(Forfarshire)

  Gilhooly, James

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon.Herbert J.

  Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.)

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon Chas. Seale-

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Doherty, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, Fred W.(NorfolkMid.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, Henry J.(York,W.R.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Kinloch, Sir John GeorgeSmyth

  Pickard, Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Labouchere, Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Question put accordingly, "That '£893,316' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 196; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 99.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

  Garfit, William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Austin, Sir John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

  Gretton, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hain, Edward

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C,

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Bigwood, James

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampste'd

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hobhouse,Henry (Somerset,E.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Howard, Capt J(Kent, Faversh.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Faber, George Denison

  Howard, J. (Midx.,Tottenham)

  Bull, William James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Butcher, John George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finch, George H.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnston, Heywood (Sussex)

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

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond, Univ,

  Keswick, William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Knowles, Lees

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stock, James Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lawson, John Grant

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stroyan, John

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareh'm)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Long, Col. Charles W. Evesham

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lowe, Francis William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Purvis, Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Warde, Lieut. Col. C. E.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinburghW

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton. Lyne)

  Maxwell, Rt. HnSir H E(Wigt'n)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.)

  Bollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.)

  Moles-worth, Sir Lewis

  Round, James

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morgan, Day. J. (Walthamst'w)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Smith, HC (Northum, Tyneside

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

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

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Asher, Alexander

  Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

  Murphy, J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert. J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Bell, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid

  Blake, Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hardie,J. K. (MerthyrTydvil)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Boyle, James

  Harwood, George

  O'Doherty, William

  Brigg, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Dowd, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

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

  O'Malley, William

  Burns, John

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Shanghnessy, P.J.

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Partington, Oswald

  Caine, William Sproston

  Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Redmond, John (E. Waterford)

  Caney, John Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rigg, Richard

  Cullinan, J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Delany, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

  Dillon, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lundon, W.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dully, William J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarshire

  Duncan, James H.

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (North'ants

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  1198

  1199

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk,Mid)

  Mr. John Ellis and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  White, Luke (York, W. R.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Whiteley, George (York, E.R.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)referred to the item in respect to savings banks and friendly society deficiencies. The deficiency this year in respect of savings banks amounted to £39,866, and in 1903, when the interest on Consols was reduced, the deficiency might be materially increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be faced with the serious question of how that deficiency in respect of both trustee and post office savings banks should be dealt with, and he hoped that the idea which would commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman would be not only an increased power of investment to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of funds entrusted to them and paid over by the savings banks, but also that the trustees and managers of the savings banks would be allowed greater powers of investment in local and other securities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had more than once stated that legislation on this subject must take place, and last session a Bill was introduced providing for a fluctuating rate of interest to the depositors. Those connected with banks generally, not only the depositors, but also trustees and managers, felt that such a fluctuating rate of interest fixed annually would be a matter of great difficulty with regard to anticipatory calculation, and also that it would have a tendency to decrease the deposits in savings banks, which were so conducive to the thrift and providence of the country. As Chairman of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks, he (the speaker) believed, so far as it was possible to form a judgment, that the deposits were made by those classes which it was the original intention of the Savings Banks Act to help, and that generally speaking the banks had the great provident value which had always been attached to them. Further, the State got the benefit of the services of these honorary trustees and managers, who did most admirable work on behalf
  1200
  of the country. His main object in rising was to make a strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make at least a full inquiry before he again proposed a measure for the establishment of a fluctuating rate of interest, and also to give an opportunity to those connected with the banks to express the very strong wish that existed for an enlarged field of investment. He believed that properly made investments in local securities were the very best and a perfectly safe form of investment, and he hoped before any legislation was a tempted with regard to the matters he had referred to a committee would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and into the expediency of effecting those administrative reforms which had been recommended by the Inspection Committee in its annual reports, and embodied by himself in a Bill which he had introduced into the House of Commons.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be extremely cautious in dealing with this matter at all. When this question was before us on a previous occasion it was supposed that Consols were too high, and that they were going up to lot). The present tendency seems to be to go to 50 rather than 150. The dangers which were anticipated with reference to savings banks in consequence of what are called the terribly inflated condition of Consols has disappeared, and I do not I think the danger is likely to reappear— at present, at all events. Therefore, if I might venture to offer any suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be to leave this matter alone.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid that with Consols at 95 and Exchequer Bills bringing in 311/16, the House might very well wait before dealing with this subject. He seriously doubted the wisdom of largely increasing the scope of the present investments of savings banks, because directly the savings banks held large sums in other securities they practically guaranteed those secure ties, and the advantage of their having a larger field of investment was at once

  1201
  done away with. It was not necessary to go into the subject of the fluctuating rate of Consols, but he could not see why the savings bank rate should not fluctuate the same as any other bank rate, if necessary. From the present condition of the money market it was not likely that the difficulty with regard to Consols would arise for some years, and he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on not having done much at present.
  MR. COHENurged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be very cautious as to how he interfered with the securities in which savings banks funds might be invested. The depositors had the security of the State, and when the State had given that security it should take care that the funds were invested in Government securities. He did not say that that was a rule from which under no conceivable circumstances should any departure be made, but certainly the right hon. Gentleman had been very wise in not allowing the actual price of Consols at the moment to govern his decision in the matter. The question was far too important to be determined by the fluctuation in the price of Consols, and if the present rule were departed from it would artificially appreciate the value of the other securities in which the savings banks were permitted to invest.
  MR. LOUGHcongratulated the hon. Members for East and North Islington on their change of mind in regard to this question, and reminded them that when the Bill to which reference had been made was introduced he stood up for the very principle they were now so well advocating. There was every reason why the rate of interest paid to depositors in savings banks should not fluctuate. The Vote before the House dealt with the state of savings banks only to the end of 1899, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state the position at the end of 1900, as the House would be glad to know exactly how the matter now stood.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTjoined in the congratulations that no change was about to be made in the
  1202
  present conditions. He very strongly held the opinion that a fluctuating rate of interest would be a great calamity to all the investing classes of the country, and also that the reduction of the present rate of interest would be detrimental to savings banks. He therefore hoped that no change would be made in either respect so long as present conditions obtained.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINSsaid the Manchester trustees of savings banks felt very keenly that they were compelled to invest the money they lent in the purchase of Manchester Corporation stock. They wished most distinctly not to be obliged to purchase stock which fluctuated, hut to be allowed to lend money in fixed sums to be returned in the same amounts. They did not wish to incur the risk of complications arising in the market; if they lent £100 they desired to got £100 back. The House had never had any explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to why they were subjected to the present inconvenience.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISdesired to call attention to a matter which affected a large class of taxpayers in the country. The income-tax on incomes up to £700 a year was graduated—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not see under which part of the Vote the hon. Member is proceeding.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that under the Inland Revenue Vote there were certain charges for law expenses, prosecutions, and collection, and his point was that under the existing administration there were very considerable difficulties in the way of people obtaining rebates of amounts due to them if their incomes were less than £700 a year. He did not in the least blame the local officers, as they simply acted upon instructions, but it ought to be made as easy as possible for people to obtain such rebates as they were entitled to.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not see how this comes under the present Vote. The hon. Member's complaint seems rather to touch the policy of the Chan-

  1203
  cellor of the Exchequer, and in that case would come on on the ordinary Estimates, on the Vote for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's salary.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISthen called attention to the desirability of improving post office accommodation at the large railway stations in this country. On the Continent the accommodation for post office purposes at the stations was infinitely superior to that provided in this country.
  *MR. SPEAKERintimated that in the Report of Supply for the 28th February there was a Vote for post office buildings, but not in the Report under discussion.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISthen directed attention to the Vote for stationery and printing, and thought the House was entitled to have the printing of Hansard done more expeditiously. Members of the Canadian Parliament actually had on their breakfast tables the report of the debate of the previous evening.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This Vote is for printing done for public departments and in the Stationery Office. Hansard, is not printed in the Stationery Office; there is merely an arrangement between the Treasury and Hansard by which a certain number of copies are supplied.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISwas about to refer to the question of slavery in British East Africa, when
  *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the only expenses asked for in the Supplementary Estimate with regard to British East Africa were in relation to a punitive expedition, and the abolition of slavery would not come under that.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the House was constantly being told that the object of these military expeditions in distant parts of the Empire was the suppression of slavery, and under these circumstances he thought the House had a right to say a word with regard to the cost of those operations.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to this particular expedition in Zanzibar.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISthought that if these military operations were undertaken, one of their main objects being to put down slavery, we should be perfectly consistent and put down slavery where we had the power to do so as early as possible. He concluded by thanking the Speaker for the courtesy with which he had pointed out the circumstances under which he was precluded from raising the questions to which he had referred, but doubtless other occasions would arise upon which he could return to those subjects.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEreferred to the Printing and Stationery Vote, a portion of which was required for mourning stationery in connection with the death of the late Queen. He did not intend to quibble with the amount spent, but he certainly thought the Government might have set a better standard of taste in regard to the stationery. Its hideous black border was offensive to the eye and the taste. [Ministerial laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite had no taste he could not help it.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That observation is beyond the courtesies of debate.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: In that case, Sir, I will call your attention to the fact that hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite are evidently not in a fit condition to behave themselves.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That again is a most irregular observation, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: As probably I cannot prove it, I beg to withdraw the observation. The hon. Member expressed the hope that when in future such stationery was required some form of border would be devised which was less offensive to the taste than that now adopted. He also objected to the Vote of £20,000 which took the form of a grant to the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York in connection with their visit to the colonies. The object for which that expense had been incurred had been neither considered nor sanctioned by the House of Commons, and

  1205
  he asked whether it was in accordance with constitutional practice and procedure that the nation should be called upon to bear such expenses without the House of Commons having first sanctioned the expenditure. Cases of emergency might arise-wherein it was necessary to incur liabilities without an opportunity presenting itself for consulting the House of Commons, but that was not the case on the present- occasion. If this expenditure was not being incurred under any rule or decision of the House, by whose authority was it undertaken? The next Vote on the Paper was in connection with the funeral of the late Queen. He had no objection whatever to the amount spent on the funeral ceremony; his objection was entirely to the manner in which the money had been expended. The ceremony took the form of a military funeral, and he protested in the strongest and most emphatic manner against the Head of a constitutional State being buried with military honours, to the total exclusion of the whole civil and religious life of the community. The late Queen was the head of the Army, but she was also head of the Anglican Church as bylaw established, of the law courts, and of the State, and an explanation was due to the- nation why the funeral was entirely a military display from which civic, religious, and communal life was altogether excluded. A part of the Vote was for stands erected along the route of the procession. He recalled with a feeling of shame that he had the honour of occupying a position on one of those stands. There were three stands erected, one for the veterans of the Army, one for cadets being trained for the Army, and the third for Members of the House of Commons. The dignified part which the representatives of the people of England were called upon to play-in the funeral ceremonies of England's greatest Queen was to stand on tip-toe upon a stand some thirty yards away from the procession in order to obtain a glimpse of it as it passed along. Whoever was responsible for the making of those arrangements was guilty of an insult to the nation at large and to the House of Commons in particular. The leading characteristic of the august Lady who for so long adorned her high office was that of domestic simplicity. Nothing
  1206
  gaudy appealed to her; garish displays were alien to her tastes and feelings; and it did seem to him a mockery that the last ceremony in connection with the passing of such a Queen should have taken the form of a huge military display, a pageant, a show for the multitudes to gape at, from which all simplicity was absent, and in connection with which feelings of reverence were all but an impossibility. ["No."] Hon. Members might differ from him on that point; his feelings were dictated by what obtained among the simple and homely people of a Scotch village, where reverence for the dead was a marked and distinguishing feature of all these last rites and ceremonies, and the great military show, and the enormous crowd of people, assembled not to do reverence to England's dead Queen, but to see the ceremony provided for them, grated upon his feelings. What he felt then, and what he felt now was that the dead body of England s Queen was used as a recruiting sergeant to help the- military designs now being carried into effect. Apart from any-feeling of that kind the fact could not be denied, and dare not be disputed, that the House of Commons, the representative of the nation, was ignored and passed over, and that the gentlemen of England were prepared to submit to the indignity without protest and without feeling the degradation it involved. If anything were required to mark the decadence of England's greatness they had it in the fact that the House of Commons, composed of English gentlemen, was prepared to see its high position taken from it, and the soldier placed where the ruler by right should stand, He asked for information in connection with these two items—first of all, by whose authority the expenditure for the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall's tour had been incurred, and secondly, who was responsible for the arrangements in connection with the funeral of the late Queen, and why it was that the funeral was turned into a military display from which the civil life of the nation was altogether eliminated?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member has called attention to two items in the Supple-

  1207
  mentary Estimate. The first is that of £20,000 for the tour of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to our colonial possessions. He has asked by whose authority the expenditure has been incurred. By my authority. I am convinced that there is perhaps no item in all the Estimates that are presented this year which would be more cheerfully voted by the House of Commons than that of the expenses of this tour, undertaken, as it is at personal sacrifice to the Duke and Duchess and the King and Queen, in the discharge of a solemn duty, undertaken at the request of our great colonies in Australasia and Canada and in other parts of the world, and calculated. I believe, to be of immense advantage in consolidating and welding together our Empire, and in instructing its future ruler as to the greatness of his responsibilities. I do not believe that even the hon. Member himself really seriously objects to this Vote. I now come to the second point to which the hon. Member called attention—the expenses of the funeral of her late Majesty the Queen. The hon. Member has not expressed, and I am quite sure that no one would express, any objection to the amount of the Vote, but he has called attention to the manner in which the funeral appeared to him to have been conducted. He has described it as a military pageant from which the civil and religious elements were entirely absent, and he has stated that in his opinion that solemn procession through 'the streets of the metropolis was viewed merely as a pageant by the hundreds and thousands of spectators, and not with feelings of reverence. I do not think that would be the impression of anyone else who witnessed it. If there was a military element in the funeral it was largely necessitated by the fact that it was impossible to keep the streets without the presence of the military, and no one, so far as I am aware, has expressed any objection to this except the hon. Member himself. I am persuaded that though there was a certain amount of military ceremony in the funeral, it was not more than was right and proper in the funeral of a Sovereign of this country, that the ceremony was solemn, quiet, and reverent,
  1208
  and that certainly both the civil and religious elements were adequately represented. The hon. Member has found fault with the accommodation reserved for the House of Commons. I have nothing to do with arrangements of that kind. All the arrangements for the funeral were under the supreme control of the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal, who. I think, the House will remember was not long ago responsible for similar arrangements on the occasion of the public funeral of Mr. Gladstone, and who. I believe, conducted on both occasions the arrangements entrusted to him in a manner deserving praise. I do not think the hon. Member is justified in the remarks he has made, and I think it was perfectly evident that they did not meet with the sympathy of the House.

  Having dealt with these two points I will say one or two words on the matter brought before the House by the hon. Member for South Islington. He referred to the item in the Vote for the expenses of the saving banks. I am glad to observe that this is a diminishing item owing to the fact that the investments have been more profitable during the past year than in the immediately preceding years. I agree with the hon. Member that it is eminently desirable that careful inquiry by the House of Commons should precede any legislation on this subject. When I introduced my Bill last year I was careful to state that such was my intention. I do not anticipate that any Bill for dealing with the interest paid to depositors in savings banks should or ought to receive assent without very careful previous inquiry by a Select Committee; and although I am sorry that the particular proposal I made was not very well received by some Members of the House, yet J am by no means wanting in the hope that when it comes to be fairly examined and discussed it may be found to be much more valuable than has been supposed. I can only say-that it has been eminently successful in connection with savings banks in France. There is one point which makes the matter somewhat urgent, and that is the fact that in 1903 the rate of interest in Consols is automatically reduced by ¼ per cent., and that as the savings banks moneys are largely invested in Consols, the income from this investment will

  1209
  diminish by a large annual sum: and therefore after that time there may be a considerable deficiency to be voted by Parliament. Before that time comes the question must be examined by the House of Commons in order to ascertain in what way it can be dealt with.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDdirected attention to the tact that the last fifteen Votes in the Supplementary Estimate were passed through Committee without a single word being said about them, owing to the new procedure adopted by the First Lord of the Treasury, and by which they were lumped together. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give some information to the House upon some of the subjects in connection with which they were asked to vote money. In the Stationery and Printing Vote there was the extraordinary sum of £100,000, which the Secretary to the Treasury said had been necessitated by the war. He had often said that there was absolutely no knowing where the expenses of the war were going to end. The large sum asked to conduct military operations did not represent what would be the full cost of the war and that was illustrated by the fact that no less a sum than £100,000 extra was asked for stationery and printing. Could the Secretary to the Treasury give any facts to justify this enormous sum? That gigantic sum appeared to be out of all proportion to any real necessity there could be. An additional stun of £15,800 was asked for the diplomatic and consular services. I low did it come about that this considerable sum wits asked for? He presumed that it was expense which had arisen out of military operations in China. He also asked explanations of £4,000 in connection with the state of affairs in the Portuguese Settlement, and £1,200 for telegrams in connection with the state of affairs in the Far East. It would be much better in his opinion if the Government were to cease their policy of aggravating the Chinese, and leave them alone in their own country. He was sure they would treat in a proper way the Europeans going there, but the present system of harrying and worrying the Chinese—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question is not relevant.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he mentioned this merely for the purpose of pointing out that the cause of the cost of which he complained was to be found in the warlike policy of His Majesty's Government. In the Vote for the Treasury best Fund an increase of £,63,261 was asked. He ventured to say that the explanation given of that amount was not quite clear. They were asked to vote an additional sum of £4,600 for the Lord Chamberlain's Department to provide insignia of the Distinguished Service Order. No doubt that Order was highly prized by the gentlemen who earned it, and no doubt they received it in a meritorious and proper way. He believed that the vast majority of those who received the Order would feel it to be only a compliment to be allowed to pay any paltry cost there might be in connection with providing themselves with the decoration which they hung upon their breast. When there there were so many people in the direst straits in this country, when they found themselves surrounded in every part of the United Kingdom by distress, when they knew that even within a few minutes walk of the House there were in the streets and alleys and slums of Westminster people who were probably at the moment hungering for a crust of bread, and suffering semi-starvation, it was rather frivolous that the taxpayers should be asked to pay £4,600 merely for the purpose of buying some blue, green, red, or yellow ribbon to decorate the coats of gentlemen who had been awarded the Distinguished Service Order. The next Vote had reference to the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall's visit to the Colonies. With regard to that he had nothing whatever to say. He thought if they sent them there it would be rather hard to ask them to go without their travelling expenses. The Irish felt it, no doubt, a hard thing that they should be called upon to pay a proportion of that expense, which really did not affect them much, but from the English point of view, and from the ordinary commercial business point of view, he did not blame the Government for paying the travelling expenses of their Royal Highnesses. With regard to the Vote of £35,000 for the funeral of Her late Majesty, he did not desire to say a single word. That was a matter for the country

  1211
  and the House of Commons, and if they thought that the money was properly expended he did not feel disposed to offer any objection. It was a hardship and a grievance that Members of the House should be called upon at that hour (11.25 p.m.) to consider fifteen Votes, upon which they were not allowed to say one word in Committee of Supply. He might say in this connection that he believed the whole House of Commons heard with the greatest satisfaction the statement which Mr. Speaker made from the Chair, in connection with the new departure of lumping the Votes of the Supplementary Estimate together, that this would not be regarded as a precedent by the Government in the future.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERcalled attention to the extra expenditure in connection with the diplomatic service. The Vote showed an increase of 75 per cent, on the original Estimate, and that mainly for telegrams. That was a very large increase in one year after the Estimates had been made out. That could not be entirely owing to the prolongation of the war, for even if the war had been over there would have been large expenditure in connection with peace negotiations. An increase of 75 per cent. on diplomatic telegrams was more than could be accepted without very considerable explanation. Several hon. Members had intended to raise the question in Committee, but were precluded from doing so because the Vote was not reached. There was very considerable difficulty in discussing the matter on the Report stage, and his only course was to move a reduction at once.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot now move a reduction.
  MR.COURTENAY WARNERsaid that that was another difficulty which confronted hon. Members when discussing Estimates on the Report stage. He hoped that the Government would give the House some explanation of such a large increase. He regretted that hon. Members should be precluded from discussing such an important question in Committee.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBER- LAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I will deal as briefly as I can, but I hope, with sufficient fulness to satisfy hon. Members, with the various questions that have been addressed to me. If the hon. Member who has just spoken will look at the Vote he will observe that only £4,000 can in any way be said to be connected with the state of war existing in South Africa.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I pointed out that it was not due to the war in any way.
  MR.AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the hon. Member relieves me from the necessity of making any further explanation.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Then what was the cause of the increase?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The first cause is the disturbed condition of affairs in China, and secondly there is a sum of £4,000 for telegrams with reference to the state of affairs at Lorenco Marques. As the hon. Member knows, Lorenco Marques became of very considerable importance. Events of great interest took place there, and he will understand that it was necessary for the Foreign Secretary to communicate with our representative there, and not infrequently. It is not unreasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the past year, that more inquiries than were anticipated were necessary, especially when it is remembered that the Estimates had to be framed in October, November and December of the year before last. The hon. Member for East Clare asked me to give him some indication as to how the £100,000 for the Stationery Vote was made up, that sum being described in the Vote as being mainly due to the war. I ought to say that the Stationery Vote includes something more than hon. Members may suppose. It is not only notepaper and printing, but a variety of other stores also, such as packing-paper, required by the War Office for the stores they have sent out to South Africa. That has been supplied by the Stationery Office, as well as special waterproof coverings to cover articles which might be damaged by damp. Then there were thirteen million envelopes demanded by the War Office in excess of their normal supply, and

  1213
  250,000 discharge certificates were also required in excess of the usual supply. Then there were special account hooks for the use of officers and men, which were prepared with counterfoils, so that an order might he given for payment and a record kept. Of all ordinary supplies there has been a large excess required this year. Without wearying the House, I think I have said sufficient to show hon. Members how the increase has occurred.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the information, and merely wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of putting the details in the Estimates next year, which would have the effect of preventing him and other hon. Members from making speeches.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would be very ready to fall in with the hon. Gentleman's view, and am perfectly open to make a bargain with him. The hon. Gentleman asked me to explain the item for the Treasury Chest Fund. This consists of a fixed sum of about £700,000 to supply various treasury chests abroad, and to meet the needs of the Services in different places. In ordinary years there may be some deficiency to be made good owing to the loss incurred in transferring money. In the present year there has been a loss on the Treasury Chest Fund in some dozen different stations, and profits on treasury bills in half a dozen others, but of course the main item which has raised the figure this year is the very large sum required in South Africa for the pay of our forces. In ordinary times the money required by the treasury chest at the Cape is provided by the Cape Government, we supplying them in return with any money they may require in London. But owing to the very large increase in the amount necessitated by the war, the Cape Government were not able to supply us, and we were obliged to make arrangements with the banks instead.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the money for the troops would appear again in the Army Estimates.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, Sir. No money is included
  1214
  in this Vote for the payment of the troops; this is merely the cost of providing money in South Africa. Then, with reference to the provision of the Distinguished Service Order badges, the War Office anticipated that a considerable number would be required. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Have they got them in stock?] Yes, Sir; there are a certain number in stock, which will shortly be required. Some, I believe, have already been required in connection with the operations in China and West Africa, though none up to the present in connection with the operations in South Africa. By ordering a very large number we have been able to secure a very considerable reduction on each badge. [Mr. W. REDMOND: How much?] I speak from memory, but I think I am substantially correct when I say that the reduction is from £9 12s. to £6. [Mr. W. REDMOND: How much does a Victoria Cross cost?] There are no Victoria Crosses in this Vote, but I imagine that the Victoria Cross does not cost anything like as much as the Distinguished Service Order Badge. The hon. Member suggested, I do not think seriously, that the recipients of these honours should be called upon to pay for them. I think that would be very ungracious, all the more as the Order is one that is given to all ranks, and may therefore be a very heavy tax on the scanty means of some of the recipients.
  MR. FIELDsaid that, while acknowledging the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman, he desired to call attention to two points. There was an enormous increase in the Post Office Vote, regarding which he should like to have an explanation. Then there was £200,000 added for Commissions. He was a Member of the Port and Dock Board of Dublin, and he wished to have a Commission appointed, and would like to know its probable cost. Then the expenses connected with the Scotch Private Bill Act were increased by £100,000. He would also like some explanation as to that, because it was a subject in which Irish Members took an enormous amount of interest, He objected, as a business man, to the way in which the Supply Estimates were brought forward in one sum. The heads of the different Departments ought to be criticised across the

  1215
  floor of the House in a businesslike fashion, He hoped the system would not be used as a precedent, but that in future the financial business of the House would be carried on on ordinary business principles. Surely no commercial firm would lump such an enormous number of items together without-giving an opportunity of their being analysed or audited. He entirely agreed with what had been said with regard to the savings banks, and believed it would be highly prejudicial if the rate of interest were to fluctuate, in his opinion it ought to be a settled rate. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would give him some information about the increase in the Post Office Vote. Of course, he knew it extended over the three kingdoms, but still the Post Office authorities ought to be able to judge their expenditure better.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that with reference to the stationery and printing contracts he was not satisfied with the explanation that had been given. As a printer himself he would not object to the expenditure, provided it was spent among the working printers of England. He should like to know how many of the thirteen million envelopes referred to by the hon. Gentleman were produced in England. He knew well that none of them were manufactured in Ireland, and the next best thing, to his mind, was that they should be of English manufacture, and that Germany and other Continental countries should not get the money. If there were thirteen million envelopes he, wished to know how many millions of reams of notepaper were required. The printers of England were badly in want of employment, and he should be glad to know that the money mentioned in the Vote was spent among them. He also wished to know whether all the money went into one firm or was spread over a number of firms, or spent in overtime. If the overtime system were adopted, owing to pressure or otherwise, it was a very bad thing, and he would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to put a stop to it.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give the information which his hon. friend had asked
  1216
  for. Apart from political considerations he felt that the subject was very important to the manufacturers of England, if not to the manufacturers of Ireland. The taxpayers of Great Britain were compelled, owing to war and other unforeseen causes, to pay very heavy rates, and the very least they could expect was that the money raised by that means should be distributed among them again. Although hon. Members had pressed the question again and again they had been unable to obtain any information as to where the envelopes and other articles mentioned were manufactured. They all knew that in Germany, owing to the sweating system, envelopes could be supplied at a cheaper rate than in England. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote would give some explanation on the matter. Then, with reference to the printing for public Departments, he certainly had not heard any detailed explanation regarding it. It was extraordinary that on every single occasion on which his hon. friends endeavoured to encourage the industries of England or of Ireland they were absolutely refused information. If it were to be the policy of the Government to boycott the industries not only of Ireland but of England and Scotland, and send money out of the country, then right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench should announce that policy at the General Election, but they would not do that. It might be said that his hon. friends spoke simply for the purpose of obstructing, but that was not so. They claimed all along the right to express their opinion on questions before the House. They had always complained of the small amount of money spent in their own country, although it contributed more than its fair share of taxation. They were compelled to pay, and could only make their protest. They were justified in protesting, not only on behalf of their own constituents, but on behalf of the constituents of other hon. Gentlemen who did not do their duty. Only a few nights ago he raised a very important question of interest to the agricultural community of England—namely, as to how corn was supplied to His Majesty's horses. But he could not obtain any information. He could assure

  1217

  hon. Gentlemen, however, that the more information was suppressed the more they were determined to press for it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would answer the questions which had been raised, otherwise he was sure, some of his hon. friends would think it necessary to continue the discussion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no right to speak a second time, hut, with the permission of the House. I may assure the hon. Member that all the, stationery stores are ordered within the country.
  MR. NANNETTI: What country? Does the hon. Gentleman mean England or Ireland?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Within the United Kingdom. All the stationery and printing required in Ireland is ordered in Ireland; and the whole of it within the United Kingdom. In every case where it is possible public competition is invited for tenders, the only exception being in the case of one or two firms where some speciality is required which only these firms can supply, but even these firms are in the position of having contracts obtained by public competition.
  *MR. O'DOHERTY: Are we to understand that the stationery used in Government offices in Ireland is made from paper manufactured in Irish paper mills?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that is so. Part of the increase of the Post Office Votes is due to the war, which involved a considerable increase in the stores: a great deal to the extra cartage by road owing to the removal to Mount Pleasant, and the remainder to the general increase of business which requires a larger staff, and the engagement of men to fill the places of the Reservists and others who have gone out to the war in South Africa, and whose places had to be filled in other ways.
  MR. FIELD: Am I to understand that no considerable portion of this money is given to railway companies in the shape of increased subsidies?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
  *MR. O'DOHERTYsaid a question had been raised with reference to £700, the cost of the Salmon Fisheries Commission in Ireland. He wanted the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that the Government would take steps by legislation to carry out the recommendations of that Commission in order to protect the salmon fishing, industry in Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the Commission of which the hon. Gentleman thinks. That is the Scottish Salmon Fishery Commission.
  *MR. O'DOHERTYsaid that in Committee of Supply he had called the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the increased Vote for fuel and light; and the First Commissioner informed the Committee that he had made certain arrangements with colliery owners in England for next year. He would like to draw attention to the fact that several Continental Governments were inquiring into the use of compressed peat for raising steam for machinery and ships. A few days ago there was an announcement in the Engineer that the Government of Sweden had appointed an expert to examine the peat resources of Sweden and. Norway for the purpose of providing an economical fuel for the public service. If that were done by the present Government in this country, it would go a good way towards developing a great industry not only in Ireland, but in Scotland. He asked the Government to give an assurance that they would appoint a Commission to inquire into the use of compressed peat, which would give employment to many people in the congested districts both of Ireland and Scotland. There might be a large saving to the British taxpayer, for no doubt during the last two years the Government had been at the mercy of the colliery owners. Apart from the saving in money, it might be the means of educating workmen in districts of the United Kingdom which were not coal-producing. He was glad to hear that a great part of the stationery used by the Government departments in Ireland was manufactured in Ireland; but the hon. Gentle-

  1219
  man had not answered the question whether any part of the thirteen million envelopes required for the South African campaign were manufactured in Ireland, or whether they were manufactured (entirely in England.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid he wished to direct attention to the question of the failure of the Postmaster General to provide a postal service to the village of Castletown, Berehaven.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask any question on the Post Office service unless it applies to the Supplementary Votes.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid he would draw attention to the subject on the Appropriation Bill next day.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes 53. (Division List No. 100.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Keswick, William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Duke, Henry Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Knowles, Lees

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lambton, Hon.Frederick Wm.

  Asher, Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  Lawrence, William F.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Faber, George Denison

  Lawson, John Grant

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Austin, Sir John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bain,' Colonel James Robert

  Finch, George H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S,

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Levy, Maurice

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Beach, Rt. Hn.SirM. H. (Bristol)

  Fuller, J. M. E.

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Garfit, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bigwood, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Brigg, John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlt's)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  M'Iver, David (Liverpool)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Gorst, Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bull, William James

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Butcher, John George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Caldwell, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Greene, Sir E. W. (BurySt.Edm

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Middlemore, John T.

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

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemth.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Henderson, Alexander

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

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

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.)

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Holland, William Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Joicey, Sir James

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Partington, Oswald

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E.

  Plammer, Walter R.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Price, Robert John

  Smith, HC (North'mbTyneside)

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

  Priestley, Arthur

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Purvis, Robert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Spencer, RtHn C.R. (Northants)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stock, James Henry

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rigg, Richard

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

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

  Richie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthr)

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

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

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Round, James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Young, Commander (Berks, E)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Ure, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wallace, Robert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Doherty, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Bell, Richard

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Boyle, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, JohnE. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thompson, E.C. (Monaghan,N)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duncan, James H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool

  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY [28TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
Remaining Resolutions [12th March] further considered:—
SUPPLY [28TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    Class I.
    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 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
    1222
    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."
    Third Resolution:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some details of the Vote.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,St. Augustine's)said that the Supplementary Estimates were partly occasioned by changes in Embassies abroad. Further, at Lisbon the sanitary arrangements, which were entirely wrong, had to be set right.
    MR. FLAVINasked why a house which was suitable for the previous occupant was not suitable for his successor.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that he thought that a house that had been occupied for five or six years by an Ambassador and his family required a certain amount of painting and alteration when it was vacated.
    Fourth Resolution:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. FLAVINsaid that in connection with the Vote they had pressed the right hon. Gentleman very strongly to give some information as to the contracts. In July, 1900, Her Majesty's Government entered into a contract for the supply of fuel for a period of six months, and in some cases for fifteen months, when fuel was at its highest price. If the right hon. Gentleman was catering for his own household he would not enter into such a contract at that time. They had failed to obtain the name of the mine owner who supplied the fuel, and also as to whether the lowest tender was accepted. They had also asked, in Committee, for information as to household articles referred to in the Vote, and as to whether they were manufactured in England or Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman and his officials were directly responsible for having entered into a contract for fuel when coal was at its highest price. Anyone who knew the conditions of the coal market knew very well that the price could not have gone higher, and he could not see any justification or excuse for such a transaction.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that in regard to the coal contract tenders were asked from all the firms in South Wales who supplied the kind of coal they re-
    1224
    quired. They accepted the two lowes tenders which were made. As to the length of the contracts, in the first instance the contract was for six months and in the other instance for three months.
    MR. FLYNNsaid they all acknow ledged the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman, and his desire to explair as well as he could the various items in the Vote, but surely he would recognise that no private individual in conducting his business would consider it good accounting that the original Estimate should be exceeded by 50 per cent. If these Supplementary Estimates merely represented small amounts they might be explained on the ground that they were almost inevitable, but with a few I exceptions the Supplementary Estimates were for large and alarming amounts.
    MR. POWERsaid that the prediction of the state of things which would follow the new rule introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury had been borne out by what had taken place. If the officials who made up original Estimates came to believe that Supplementary Estimates would pass without criticism they would become careless in the preparation of the Estimates. No good business man in the conduct of his own affairs would be so very much out of his calculation as the Government appeared to be in regard to these Estimates.
    MR. NANNETTIsaid there were coalfields in Ireland that might have been utilised. There were districts in Ireland where, he was happy to say, coal was being produced at 10s. per ton. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that the Government would be doing a good act if they encouraged the Irish to develop the coalfields of the country. That question might be worthy of the consideration of the Cabinet.
    MR. CULLINANsaid that as a new Member he would state the opinion he had formed in regard to the manner in which the Estimates were prepared. In local boards throughout the country the Estimates when submitted gave details in order that the members of those boards might perfectly understand what was to be done with

    1225
    the money. He found the Estimates submitted in that House did not give the details they ought to give. When this matter was before them on a previous occasion they had what was described as an unpleasant and disgraceful scene in the House. Why was that? It was because the information asked by the Nationalist Members was not supplied. It was a most unbusinesslike method to
    have these large accounts lumped together with no details, and so far as he was concerned he would, while he was in that House, try to resist the system and press every Minister to give information as to how the money was expended. Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 182, Noes, 49. (Division List No. 101.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'ds)

    Penn, John

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Gretton, John

    Priestley, Arthur

    Asher, Alexander

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.- Col. Edward

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(M'dx)

    Purvis, Robert

    Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

    Radcliffe, R. F.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Reckitt, Harold James

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Beach, Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol)

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Bell, Richard

    Hope, J F(Sheffield, Brightside

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

    Rigg, Richard

    Bignold, Arthur

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Joicey, Sir James

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bull, William James

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Keswick, William

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Butcher, John George

    Knowles, Lees

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Caldwell, James

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lawson, John Grant

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick NS.

    Simeon, Sir Harrington

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Levy, Maurice

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

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

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Smith, HC (Northumb Tyns'ide)

    Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r)

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Chapman, Edward

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

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

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Spencer, Rt. Hn CR(Northants)

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

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lucas Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Stock, James Henry

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Thomas, F. Freenman-(Hastings

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Maxwell, W.J.(Dumfriesshire

    Ure, Alexander

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Valentia, Viscount

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Elibank, Master of

    Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

    Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Morrell, George Herbert

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Finch, George H.

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray G.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Wilson, Arthur S. (York,E.R.

    Gladstone, Rt.HnHerbert John

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

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

    Gordon, Maj. E. (T'wer H'mlts)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    NOES.

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

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Doherty, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hardie, J. K. (MerthyrTydvil)

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

    Boyle, James

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

    O'Malley, William

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Leamy, Edmund

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Reddy, M.

    Crean, Eugene

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Delany, William

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Sullivan, Donal

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Duffy, William J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Duncan, James H.

    Murphy, J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Field, William

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Flynn, James Christopher

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

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Question put and agreed to.

SUPPLY [1ST MARCH] REPORT.
Remaining Resolutions [14th March] further considered.
SUPPLY [1ST MARCH] REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    Class II.
    4."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, 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 Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    5."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,200, 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 Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
    6."That a sum, not exceeding £1,015, 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 Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
    Fourth Resolution:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked why the Supplementary Estimates for the increased cost of telegrams were placed in two Votes. On the Vote just passed there were £15,000 for telegrams, and on the one before the
    1228

    House there were another £6,000. Such a system was very confusing, and perhaps the Secretary of State would state why the money was thus divided.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The Vote which the House had under consideration just now was for telegrams sent from abroad to the Foreign Office—diplomatic and consular telegrams. This Vote is for telegrams sent abroad from the Foreign Office, which therefore are accounted for under the Foreign Office The reason the double Estimate is kept up is simply that it follows the pattern set by the main Estimate, as of course it must do.
    MR. FLYNN: Is not the real reason that there has been a great addition to the cost of telegrams owing to the state of affairs in China?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That is so.
    MR. FLYNNfurther asked whether the Foreign Office had not some system under which their telegrams were sent at a lower rate than is charged ordinarily.
    MR. FLAVINthought it rather extraordinary that the additional sum required, should be an even £6,000, without an odd pound or shilling. Did the £6,000 represent the actual amount spent, or did it represent merely in round figures: the amount required? In his judgment,. it was not a correct statement of the actual amount of the deficiency which they were asked to vote.
    MR. FIELDwished to know if the Government had made any special terms

    1229
    with the telegraph companies in regard to the prices charged for telegrams in the Vote.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The question whether the companies charge different rates or not does not come under this Vote.
    MR. FIELDsaid that all he wished to know from the noble Lord was whether any endeavour had been made to enter into an arrangement with the companies so that the telegraphic service might be carried out with economy.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The reason why this item for telegrams appears as a round sum is that it is in the nature of an Estimate up to the 31st of March, and it is, therefore, impossible to go into those odd shillings which have been referred to.
    MR. FLAVINasked how the single pound came into the Estimate?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Because we are dealing with the Supplementary Estimate and not with the original Estimate. This question as to the rates paid for telegrams has nothing to do with my Department, for it concerns the Post Office, but I know that Government telegrams are sent cheaper and there is a reduction allowed for taking a quantity.
    Fifth Resolution:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not know whether the explanation given by the noble Lord in regard to the last Vote held good in reference to this Vote. He desired to know why the excess telegrams charged for were not put all into one Vote.
    MR. FLYNNasked if the Colonial Office got those telegrams at a special rate?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes
    MR. FIELDwished to know if the telegrams alluded to were in connection with the war in South Africa.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is stated in the Vote that they are cablegrams in connection with South Africa and Ashanti.
    *MR. FLYNNsaid it was stated in the Vote—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has already spoken,
    MR. FLYNNcontended that he had a right to speak upon the other Vote, and there was an item of £7,200 in connection with official telegrams from the office of the Colonial Secretary to His Majesty's representatives in South Africa. That being so, he wished to know how many of those telegrams had been given to the public.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That will arise on the Vote for the salary of the Colonial Secretary.
    MR. FLAVINsaid they had down in the Vote simply an item of £7,200 for telegrams. Were they not entitled to some information as to the number of telegrams which were sent, and to ask whether they were genuine or not?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In regard to the number of telegrams, we have no information. The telegrams are those sent between the Government. and His Majesty's representatives in South Africa and Ashanti. All those telegrams of importance to the House and the country have already been published, and a vast number of the telegrams upon this Vote are upon trifling matters of business and departmental subjects which, if we were to publish them, would constitute a whole library.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, —14. (Division List No. 102.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bignold, Arthur

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

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

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

    Bull, William James

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Asher, Alexander

    Bell, Richard

    Butcher, John George

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Caldwell, James

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.

    Priestley, Arthur

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

    Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Purvis, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex),

    Ratcliffe, R. F.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Reckitt, Harold James

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Chapman, Edward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col W.(Salop.

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Keswick, William

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

    Knowles, Lees

    Rigg, Richard

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, John Grant

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Levy, Maurice

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Davies, Sir H.D. (Chatham)

    Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.},

    Duncan, James H.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Elibank, Master of

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.),

    Fenwick, Charles

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Finch, George H.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Stock, James Henry

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings).

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)

    Ure, Alexander

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(TrH'mlets)

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Walker, Col. William Hall.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

    Goschen,Hon. George Joachim

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Welby, Sir Charles C.E. (Notts.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Greene Sir EW (B'ry. SEdm'nds)

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Whiteley, H(Ashton-und.Lyne)

    Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Nicholson, William Graham

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

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Penn, John

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Boyle, James

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, William

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Donnell, J. (Kerry, W)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Leamy, Edmund

    O'Malley, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Crean, Eugene

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Reddy, M.

    Delany, William

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duffy, William J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Ffrench, Peter

    Murphy, J.

    Field, William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

    Sixth Resolution:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that it might be remembered that, when the Vote was under discussion before, he raised a question about the renewal or,

    1233
    what lie might call, the recrudescence of the office of Lord Privy Seal, and that the First Lord of the Treasury defended it as on the whole a convenient abnormality. That was what his reply came to. He did not intend to renew the discussion, but he wished to put one point before the House. The Lord Privy Seal was the Prime Minister, but as Prime Minister he did not appear on the Estimates. As Lord Privy Seal he had no duties to perform, and he appeared on the Estimates in that capacity in order that he might receive a salary for the position of Prime Minister, who had no official or legally-recognised position, and which, therefore, could not be paid for out of public funds. He wished to point out that the Prime Minister as Prime Minister was mainly responsible for the policy of the Government, of which he was the chief. They could not discuss his duties as Lord Privy Seal, there being no such duties, and how, therefore, were they to discuss his policy as Prime Minister, when as Prime Minister he did not appear on the Estimates?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The only course open to the hon. Member is to bring forward the question as an independent substantive motion. The only matter that can be debated now is the duties of Lord Privy Seal.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that was precisely his point. He desired to direct attention to the fact that the Supplementary Vote they were discussing differed from the ordinary Supplementary Votes, because it appeared not as a Supplementary Vote at all, but as a substantive Vote.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member hardly appreciates what I have said. He cannot discuss on this Vote whether or not the salary of the Prime Minister ought to be put upon the Votes in some way so that he could be criticised in his capacity as Prime Minister. That is a matter for a substantive motion.
    SIR E. ASIIMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that, when the Vote was discussed in Committee, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney General very carefully pointed out that the money in the Vote was not given to its recipient as Lord Privy Seal, but as Prime Minister. The question was discussed whether the salary was suffi-
    1234
    cient for the Prime Minister, and there appeared to be a general concurrence of opinion that the amount should be increased to £5,000. He now wished to ask when hon. Members could possibly discuss the policy of the Prime Minister if not on this Vote. He did not propose to discuss it now, but as a precedent for the future, and with all respect to what had been said from the Chair, he wished to point out as strongly as he could that the House of Commons ought to have it in its power to discuss this Vote as a Vote for the Prime Minister, as undoubtedly it was.
    *MR. SPEAKER: If Lord Salisbury-were still Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, his duties as Prime Minister could not be discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Foreign Secretary. It is exactly the same with the Lord Privy Seal. The duties of the Prime Minister cannot be discussed on the Vote for the office of Lord Privy Seal.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that the House was therefore in the position that they could discuss the position of the Lord Privy Seal, who had no duties, and were prevented from discussing his position as Prime Minister, for which this Vote was intended.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that the position of Premiership was not on the Estimates, and he asked the First Lord whether he did not feel himself compelled, in fairness to the House, to find some opportunity of associating the Prime Minister with an office, such as that of the First Lord of the Treasury, so that the right of criticism applied to every member of the Government might be applied to the Prime Minister.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a mistake. The First Lord of the Treasury had certain duties assigned to him. They were told that those duties were not onerous. He did not mean to discuss whether they were onerous or not, but they did not carry the duties of the Prime Minister. In truth, the hon. Gentleman was dealing not with an anomaly created by the new circumstances in respect to the office of Lord Privy Seal, but an anomaly attaching to the office of Prime Minister. The difficulties of discussion were inherent in that strange and abnormal characteristic of

    1235
    the British Constitution by which the chief person in that Constitution had no recognised place. The Constitution did not recognise the Prime Minister; there were no official duties for him to perform, and there was no salary attached to the position of Prime Minister as such. Therefore, even if the Prime Minister also held the office of First Lord of the Treasury, or any other office, it would be impossible to discuss any action of the First Minister of the Crown, as Prime Minister, until Parliament chose to create the office of Prime Minister and attach to it a salary. This might be abnormal, but on the whole it was expedient, for it was impossible to say where the duties of the Prime Minister began or ended. He supposed that in a sense the Prime Minister was responsible for the action of all his colleagues, but it would be highly inconvenient to discuss his action in that form.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it was now getting on for two o'clock in the morning, and the House of Commons was engaged in the extraordinary task of voting a sum of £2,000 to a gentleman because he held an office which, anmittedly, had no duties whatever connected with it. Such an absurdity never was heard since Mr. Gilbert gave up writing comic operas for the Savoy theatre. Would it not have been quite as easy for the Government to come down and say, "Let us pay the Prime Minister £2,000 a year," or whatever salary they thought fit to mention? That would have been a straightforward course, and would, at any rate, have relieved the House of Commons from the absurd position in which it now found itself. Apart from the absurdity of it, he protested against voting this salary at all. To his mind there was nothing more extraordinary in the political life of England than the line drawn between the private Member of Parliament and the purely official Member, if ever a question was raised as to the payment of M. P. 's generally, a howl of indignation was at once heard from one end of the building to the other. It was held that there was no justification in pointing out that payment of Members of Parliament obtained in our colonies and other countries. The very idea of private Members of Parliament being remune-
    1236
    rated in this country was treated with derision and hoots. It was said that it would be derogatory to the position of a Member of the House of Commons, and perish the thought of such a thing! But if they got away from the private Members, who worked as hard as Members of the Government, if they did their duty, and came to—he did not use the phrase in any offensive sense at all—the; very meanest and most insignificant Member of the Ministry—then the idea of payment at once blossomed into an absolute necessity. He did not object to Members of the Government being paid for performing duties necessary for the conduct of the Government of the country, but he did say that as long as private Members had to keep the same hours, and to pay the same attention to current affairs in the House of Commons, had to read the same Parliamentary Reports, and had to sit up to the same hour of the night or morning, as Members of the Government, and were paid nothing he would, for one, utter his most emphatic protest, not against payment of members of the Government, but against extending that principle to the absurd suggestion of paying £2,000 a year to the occupant of an office which they were truly told had no duties attaching to it at all. Now the Prime Minister of England either deserved a salary or he did not. If ho deserved a salary, why all this hugger-mugger about it? It would be as easy to vote a salary to the Prime Minister as to vote millions to spend on the war. If they were going to create a new salary for another Member of the present Government, which, collectively, was already overpaid, they should do it honestly and not humiliate the Prime Minister by putting him in the position of Pooh Bah!
    MR. FLYNNsaid ho did not think the ruling of the Chairman had brought the discussion of this Constitutional fiction down to real business. He was surprised at the absurdity of the Government gravely, seriously, and with a full sense of moral responsibility asking the House to vote £2,000 a year for the payment of an office-holder who had no duties whatever. Did anything in the Gilbertian writings transcend that? But it was not only the Lord Privy Seal's salary. The House was asked to vote the salaries

    1237
    of two private secretaries to a Minister who had no duties, and he supposed these private secretaries would have nothing to do either. If the Government had any sense of the humorous they would withdraw the Vote. It would be far more straightforward to propose a salary for the Prime Minister. The Vote was not a Supplementary Estimate at all. It had been put down newly, and it would have been equally simple to put down a Vote for the Prime Minister, and pay him for the duties he discharged and not pay him for an office which had no duties. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in making his protest. Payment of Members was derided by hon. Members opposite, and by none with more sarcasm than right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Treasury Bench. They said, "Why pay a paltry £200 or £300 a year to men who come into the House of Commons to discharge their duties? It would lower the prestige of Parliament and of public life and public character." But it was not at all derogatory to the highest Member of the Government to have a salary even for an office in which he discharged no duties. If an intelligent foreigner could be confronted with the House of Commons solemnly sitting up till two o'clock in the morning to vote a salary for an office which had no duties, he would consider that hon. Members had reached the acme of absurdity.
    MR. NANNETTIsaid he also desired to protest against a salary being voted to the Lord Privy Seal. The people of England ought to thank the Irish Members for having called attention to the anomaly of voting money for an office which it was admitted had no duties. He was surprised that no hon. Member had spoken on behalf of the over-taxed people of England. It was like throwing money into the Thames after having wrung it out of the unfortunate taxpayers of the country, and, in his opinion, it was nothing less than a scandal. He had no objection to voting Lord Salisbury a proper salary for discharging the duties of Prime Minister, because he held that, whether as a Member of the Government, or as a private Member, the man who did the work of the State was entitled to be paid for it. They would be neglecting their duty to their constituents if they allowed the
    1238
    Vote to pass without a protest. They were not sent to the House of Commons to follow the lead of the First Lord of the Treasury. Every Vote would be amply and properly discussed, and they would leave hon. Members opposite to follow their Leader and vote.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.)said he had seen during his short acquaintance with the House many strange things attempted, but he was afraid he must characterise the attempt which was being made on the present occasion as one of the most unconstitutional acts he had ever seen. After all, what were they proposing? It was said that the office of Prime Minister carried no official salary. It was also said that the office of Lord Privy Seal did not carry with it in recent years any official salary, and the question then arose to which of the two offices was £2,000 a year to be allocated. The only conclusion that the Irish Members could come to was that while the money was apparently voted for the office of Lord Privy Seal, which has no duties, and which therefore, could not be criticised in the House of Commons, it was really intended for the Prime Minister, though not given to him as such, in order that he might escape criticism. It would be more honourable and more reasonable on the part of the Government to assert plainly that they intended to give a salary to the Prime Minister as Prime Minister, and not to attach a salary to an office which had not had a salary in recent years. Taking into account the family relations which existed between members of the Government, he thought that the country should be enlightened on the innovation which had been introduced. They were led to believe that that family were very well able to look after their own interests. Irish Members intended to criticise every Vote coming before the House. They never hoped to gain anything from the salaries and positions which Englishmen might hope to gain. They did not even hope that Ministers would ever consider the working man in the House of Commons as worthy of a salary. That, in the minds of Members opposite, would be a very dangerous innovation, because then poor men would be able to attend the House of Commons and look after the interests of their class, which

    1239
    were now neglected in favour of the interests of ascendancy.
    MR. DOOGANsaid he was surprised that Members of the House of Commons should vote away public money without receiving any return whatever for it. There were no duties attaching to the office of Lord Privy Seal, and if such a transaction occurred in private life it would be considered a very serious matter. The anomaly in his opinion had arisen from the Prime Minister being in the Upper House. If the Prime Minister were in the House of Commons he would receive a salary as First Lord of the Treasury. Supposing the Prime Minister had a seat in the House of Commons, would he still hold the office of Lord Privy Seal and draw the salary of £2,000?Would he have added to that the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, or would that office be held separately from that of the First Lord of the Treasury? These were questions which should be looked into. What would be the position a few years hence, when he hoped and he dared to say it was the general opinion of the House the work of the country would be done by a Prime Minister sitting in the House of Commons? It was certainly most important that no public money should be voted merely as a gratuity.
    MR. FIELDsaid he entirely agreed with what had fallen from his colleagues in regard to the salary paid to the Lord Privy Seal, who held an office to which
    no duties were attached. If they were to have a Prime Minister, he ought to be paid, and not only so, but he should be paid the largest salary that came from the public purse. It ought to be put before the House in a business fashion. The officials of the House were well salaried, but the Members who came there to do the work received nothing but ignominy and calumny.
    MR. FLAVINasked what were the duties of the two private secretaries, who received £400 and £200 a year, if there were no duties in connection with the office of Lord Privy Seal.
    *MR. O'DOHERTYsaid they were told that they could not discuss the duties of the Prime Minister as such on this Vote. He thought, however, when they found that the Vote included salaries for two private secretaries they were entitled to ask what their duties were. If a district or county council in Ireland were to put forward such an item of expenditure the Government auditor would he down on their heads, and the members of the council would be surcharged for the sum thus paid. He believed in calling a spade a spade, and he had no hesitation in saying, although the Vote was fathered by the First Lord of the Treasury, that it was nothing more nor less than obtaining money under false pretences.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 103.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Gordon, Maj. Evans-(Tr.Hmlts)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

    Gorst, Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Chapman, Edward

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Asher, Alexander

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Atkinson, Right Hon. John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

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

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

    Bignold, Arthur

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Henderson, Alexander

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Elibank, Master of

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de

    Bull, William James

    Fenwick, Charles

    Howard, Capt. J (Kent Faversh.)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Finch, George H.

    Johnston, Heywood (Sussex)

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

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Joicey, Sir James

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Murray. Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Keswick, William

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Smith, HC (North'mbTyneside)

    Knowles, Lees

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.

    Lawson, John Grant

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Nicholson, Wm. Graham

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Stock, James Henry

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Ure, Alexander

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Valentia, Viscount

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Purvis, Robert

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Ratcliffe, R. F.

    Welby, Sir Chas. G E. (Notts)

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Reckitt, Harold James

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Ridley, Hon. MW (Stalybridge

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

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

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Rigg, Richard

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

    Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mowbray, Sir Rbt. Gray C.

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

    NOES.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

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

    Boyle, James

    Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

    O'Dowd, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Caldwell, James

    Leamy, Edmund

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Levy, Maurice

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Priestley, Arthur

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Reddy, M.

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Delany, William

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Doogan, P.C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Duffy, William J.

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Ffrench, Peter

    Murphy, J.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Field, William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Flynn, James Christopher

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

    Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

SUPPLY [5TH MARCH].
Resolution reported:—
SUPPLY [5TH MARCH].

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1901–2 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17,301,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1002, namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  Class IV.

  £

  Board of Education

  4,100,000

  Class II.

  Board of Trade

  60,000

  Class I.

  Royal Palaces and Marlborough
  House

  20,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  40,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  16,000

  Gladstone Monument

  1,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings,
  Great Britain

  18,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great
  Britain

  12,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  12,000

  Revenue Buildings

  140,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  145,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  80,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  2,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  6,000

  Rates on Government Property

  250,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  70,000

  Railways, Ireland

  70,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  3,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  12,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  39,000

  Home Office

  50,000

  Foreign Office

  30,000

  Colonial Office

  23,000

  Privy Council Office, etc

  5,000

  Privy Seal Office

  1,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture

  75,000

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  Civil Service Commission

  18,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  24,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  2,200

  Local Government Board

  85,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  10

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  11,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  Registrar General's Office

  130,000

  Stationery and Printing

  280,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  23,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  25,500

  Fishery Board

  8,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,500

  Registrar General's Office

  28,000

  Local Government Board

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments

  16,000

  Department of Agriculture

  70,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests
  Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  26,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  16,000

  Registrar General's Office

  20,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  6,000

  CLASS III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  40,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  27,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  140,000

  Land Registry

  14.000

  County Courts

  14,000

  Police, England and Wales

  22,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  260,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  140,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  18,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Crofters Commission

  2,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  30,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  35,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  45,000

  Land Commission

  50,000

  County Court Officers, etc

  46,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  40,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  600,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  45,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,500

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,500

  Class IV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  British Museum

  80,000

  National Gallery

  9,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  4,000

  Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

  25,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  41,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  650,000

  National Gallery

  1,400

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  600,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  1,400

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  Class V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  225,000

  Uganda, Central and East Africa Protectorates and Uganda Railway

  320,000

  Colonial Services

  230,000

  Cyprus, Grant-in-Aid

  15,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  50,000

  Class VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  280,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc

  3,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Class VII

  Temporary Commission

  10,082

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  8,000

  Total for Civil Services

  £10,434,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Post Office

  3,800,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  210,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  1,680,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £6,870,000

  Grand Total

  £17,304,000

  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTprotested against a Vote of such magnitude being taken between two and three o'clock in the morning. The Vote in Committee was discussed for only one night, and the entire evening was then occupied with the important but not very practical subject of education. The Vote included items of Supply of all descriptions — English, Irish, Scotch, Welsh, foreign and colonial—and yet it was closured after so short a consideration. There certainly appeared to be a desire to prevent the House discussing most important matters, and, seeing that the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill was to be practically de-

  1245
  voted to a discussion on the Irish Local I Government Board, he thought he was justified in making this protest.
  MAJOR JAMESONdeclared that the Vote would take a week to discuss properly, but he would confine himself to two items. The first was the question of harbours under the Board of Trade. Two years ago a Board of Trade inquiry was held into the ownership of the Kilrush pier, and the Report of that inquiry proved that His Majesty's Lieutenant, although he had tried to keep possession of the pier, originally stole it. In all, about £1,200 had been expended on the pier, of which £600 was returned by the Board of Trade, and it was proved that His Majesty's Lieutenant had no interest in it whatever. This was the only pier in Ireland which had not been placed under the urban district council. Capitalising the rates which had been lost to the town, the ratepayers had been deprived of about £700. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the matter in greater detail, when—
  *MR. SPEAKERruled that the matter could not be considered under the Vote before the House.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid he would pass from that to the Constabulary Vote. In January last a man named Ryan was arrested by Sergeant Sherridan and a constable for posting seditious notices. The man was kept in prison from January 1st to January 26th, when a sort of Star Chamber Court sat upon the case, with the result that the man was spirited away and the sergeant and constable dismissed from the force. Either the man posted those threatening notices, in which case he should be brought to trial, or he had nothing to do with it. In which case the sergeant and constable should have been prosecuted for making false evidence. If the police were guilty, they should have been placed in the dock, while if they were not guilty a great injustice had been inflicted upon them by their dismissal from the force. If ever there was a case which required a public inquiry, this case did.
  MR. BOYLEsaid he wished to enter his protest against the
  1246
  policy which had been adopted by the Chief Secretary since he came into office, for he appeared to be adopting the same regime as his predecessor. If the costs of the abortive prosecutions which had been alluded to were included in this item as law charges and criminal prosecutions a more monstrous charge was never imposed upon the English public. Until the administration in Ireland came more in touch with the people there never would be peace. The small section of Ireland represented by the hon. Member for North Armagh had more influence in the House of Commons than the large district represented by the hon. Member for Water-ford. He intended to oppose this Vote as strenuously as he could. He believed that the Chief Secretary had the best possible intentions towards Ireland, and if his hands were untied he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would do something towards removing many of the grievances complained of. It was on those grounds that he protested against this Vote. He hoped that the Chief Secretary would inquire into the needs and requirements of the country and look into the office directed by the Attorney General's devil in Dublin Castle. He knew the Attorney's General devil in Ireland.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The official of whom the hon. Member is speaking is not a member of the Government. He must address himself to something more serious, and which really has something to do with the question.
  MR. BOYLEsaid he had been much impressed up to the present by the sympathetic policy the Chief Secretary had adopted, and he would conclude betaking this opportunity of asking the right hon. Member to look with the greatest possible suspicion upon his advisers in Dublin Castle.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he desired to bring forward a matter with reference to the recent disturbances in Portadown, which was distinguished not only from the rest of Ulster, but from the rest of Ireland, religious enmity being rampant there. Last August the Catholics, who were in a minority in the town,

  1247
  proposed to have an excursion to Bundoran, and, warned by past experience ' that they might possibly be assaulted by their Orange brethren, even when engaged in amusing themselves, the hon. Secretary to the Catholic Young Men's Association on 19th August addressed the following letter to the District Inspector of Police—
  "Dear Sir,—I am instructed by the Committee of the above Association to inform you that the members and their friends are going on an excursion to Bundoran on Sunday next, 26th inst., leaving Portadown Station at 8 a.m. and returning back again about 9.30 p.m., and to ask you to kindly make arrangements for their safety in your district. They will assemble at the station, but going to it and returning to their homes the police should be on the streets. They will travel viâ Armagh going and returning. Water Street, Bury Street, Edgarstown, etc., should be patrolled, and we would suggest that where a crowd assembles if some of their names were taken it would have a good effect, as they then would be afraid to do wrong."
  That letter was a proper letter to write under the circumstances, but lest it might not have been enough, the Catholics telegraphed to the Under Secretary, Dublin Castle, on August 25th—
  "Large Catholic excursion going Portadown to Bundoran to-morrow. Fear attack here, leaving and returning. Make proper provision, please. Committee Catholic Association."
  A reply was sent by letter on the same day from Sir David Harrel which stated—
  "In reply to your telegram of this evening, I beg to inform you that the Inspector General of Constabulary has been communicated with and has wired directions to Armagh constabulary to take the necessary steps to preserve the peace."
  One would have imagined that the pledge contained in that letter would have been fulfilled. He would recount to the House as briefly as possible what happened. The Catholic excursionists, in order to avoid giving any offence whatever, not only went to the station without banners or bands, which in that locality might excite disorder and opposition, but went in twos and threes and fours by different routes. In every street leading to the railway station and on the steps of the station Orangemen came up and assaulted the Catholics without the slightest provocation. There was only a single policeman present to protect the excursionists. He asked the other day what had been done by the Castle or its agents in the locality to give the special protec-
  1248
  tion promised by the Under Secretary, and he was rather surprised that so candid a gentleman as the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not give a more candid reply. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what did the special protection consist in, but the right hon. Gentleman absolutely refused to answer. He asked him now to deny that no special protection was given at all. There wore not more than half-a-dozen policemen in Portadown on that morning, although from previous experience the police must have known that an attack would be made on the Catholic excursion. The Orangemen of the district felt that they were masters of the situation, and they renewed the attack on the excursionists when it returned in the evening. Again he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to deny that there was no special protection on the streets of Portadown that evening. The result was that for two days afterwards the Orangemen of Portadown, feeling that they had the magistrates on their side, and that there were no police ready to protect the Catholics, continued their violent assaults on Catholics going to and returning from their work. The disturbance lasted for a few days. The Catholic minority were subjected to continued acts of violence, and they thought that even still an appeal to the Castle would produce some effect. Accordingly on the 22ud September they wrote a long letter in which they made certain suggestions as to the preservation of the peace in future. The letter said—
  "Catholics here feel that they have no one but themselves to depend on for protection, seeing that those responsible for the peace of the town, though timely warned when the Catholic excursion was being promoted both by our Committee and by bills posted on the hoarding, afforded us practically no protection."
  That was a very respectful letter, and the following reply was received—
  "Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Justices to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of '22nd inst., with regard to the recent disturbances in Portadown.—I am, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant."
  The Catholics of Portadown might well be expected to give up faith in Dublin Castle after that, but they wrote again on the 8th October to the Under Secretary as follows—
  "Sir,—On behalf of the C.Y.M.S. we would urge upon your immediate attention the

  1249
  prayer of our memorial of the 22nd ult. We have grounds to fear a renewal of the disturbances on the declaration of the poll on Saturday should Mr. Orr be returned. Besides the fact that a portion of the contents of our memorial was published in the last issue of our local Orange press is not calculated to add to the safety of our Catholic brethren, while the present local administration obtains."
  Now I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that letter. A memorial, which is practically confidential, was addressed to the Under Secretary. It was supposed to be private, and no Catholic journalist got hold of it. Yet it leaked out of Dublin Castle down to the office of the local Orange paper. An answer was duly received, which stated—
  "I am directed by the Lords Justices to acknowledge the receipt of your further letter of the 8th inst., with reference to the state of affairs at Portadown.—I am, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant."
  The Catholics of Portadown seemed to be very hard to deprive of confidence in the Castle. Again on 8th November another respectful letter—a much more respectful letter than he would have counselled them to write—was sent, suggesting additional police and so on. And again what was the answer?
  "Dublin Castle, November, 17th, 1900."I am directed by the Lords Justices to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 5th inst., in regard to the disturbances at Portadown on the 26th August last, and to say that the matter is receiving the due consideration of the Government."
  If a matter was "receiving the due consideration of the Government" in Ireland, that was a sign that it was at the last stage that could be reached. The next letter, written by the Secretary of the association, was dated 22nd of December, and was as follows—
  "I am instructed by the Committee of the above Association to ask you what decision, if any, the Government have come to regarding the recommendation contained in their letter of 22nd September, 1900."
  He had asked the right hon. the Chief Secretary the other day whether it was the fact that the last two letters had been left without an answer, and he said they were not. Further, he said he would give the matter his personal attention. Now he was informed by telegram from Portadown that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had no foundation. Of course he did not attribute any wilful or intentional
  1250
  misstatement to the right hon. Gentleman, but he was compelled to believe that the statement from Portadown was correct. The last letter written by the secretary of the association was dated 26th January, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That letter directed attention to the correspondence which had taken place, pointing out that no answer had been received to previous communications, and stated that if the recommendation of the association were not attended to it was their intention to have the matter discussed in the Mouse of Commons. The letter went on to say that the committee wished, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, as he had not been in office at the period of their former communication, to give him an opportunity of redressing the grievances under which the Catholics in Portadown suffered. They had been given to understand that justice would have been done before this, had it not been for the action of local officials, who forwarded reports regarding the character of their association which were at variance with the truth. The letter concluded by saying that, if necessary, a list of members of the association would be supplied, when the right hon. Gentleman would be able to judge for himself on whose authority and behalf the committee spoke. Now, that was a somewhat pathetic letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman—a kind of despairing appeal to his sense of justice; and he asserted that no answer, not even a bare official acknowledgment had been given to it. He did not exaggerate when he said that this correspondence revealed a state of things which was a disgrace to any Government which had for one of its objects the preservation of the peace, and enabling Catholics to live in quietness. He asked what would have been the action of the Executive if a thing like that had occurred in the south or west of Ireland, in a town like Galway or Bandon, where the Catholics were in an overwhelming majority and the Protestants in a minority I The state of things which prevailed in Portadown and a few other places in the north was so utterly strange to the experience of men in other parts of Ireland that they could

  1251
  hardly believe it. Supposing in the town of Galway or Bandon a Protestant society representing a minority of the population proposed to go on excursion, and asked for protection—thanks be to God, they would not need it! —but supposing they did need it, and asked for it, did anyone in his senses believe that, if necessary, the whole police force of Munster would not be drafted on to the spot? They knew what took place when a landgrabber was in difficulties. Why, not only the police but the military would be sent to his assistance. He had been on the spot and spoke from personal knowledge, and he maintained that in Portadown not only had the Catholics no confidence in the agents of the police, but in his opinion those agents did not deserve it.
  The right hon. Gentleman had told the House the other day that certain persons I had been arrested and prosecuted. Yes, they were; and he would give the House the story of two prosecutions. A member of the Orange Society had gone up to and struck a Catholic, admittedly without the slightest provocation, and knocked two or three of his teeth out. On the following day, whether there was a row or not he did not know, the man assaulted struck the Orangeman. The two men were prosecuted, and both were convicted. But what did the magistrates do? They sent the Catholic to gaol and took surety only for keeping the peace from the Orangeman. One would have imagined that for shame's sake they would have left the case to the resident magistrate, but the Orange magistrates crowded the bench, and he would not be speaking the truth if ho did not say that they went there predetermined as to the course they would take. Again, he would not be speaking the truth if he did not say that the resident magistrate was as bad as the rest of them. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that as long as he left Mr. T. D. Gibson at Portadown he would run the risk of inducing the Catholics of that town to believe that the best thing they could do for their own protection was to do as the Orangemen did—namely, arm themselves and fire bullets at the persons who in future might attack them without provocation. He had asked the other
  1252
  day whether it was a fact that the Catholic chapel in Portadown had its windows broken, and the right hon. Gentleman could not deny the fact. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say in reply? These were not his replies, they were the replies he got from the local Orange officials. He should have expected the right hon. Gentleman to say, occupying the position he did, "Yes, the windows of this Catholic church were broken; it was a very detestable outrage; I deprecate such attacks, and hope they will be prevented in future."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I said it was a wanton and mischievous act.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he would have expected the right hon. Gentleman would have said something to the effect that he disapproved heartily of these outrages. But what did he do? He gave an answer which amounted to a justification or rather an excuse for the outrage. He (the hon. Member) was not given to making reckless statements, or using immoderate language; but he was indignant when the right hon. Gentleman answered that not only had the windows of the Catholic church been broken, but also the windows of the Protestant church. Now, what had that to do with the case? But he would inform the right hon. Gentleman that this trumped-up excuse was an excuse-three or four years old—the work, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, of some little boys, but it was three or four years ago. And that was the act set up by the right hon. Gentleman by way of excuse for the ruinous breaking of the windows of the Catholic church in Portadown within the last few months. At that inopportune hour he would not occupy more of the time of the House, but from what he had said he was certain the House would be under the belief that he had not, up to that point, occupied their time unnecessarily. He had only one other remark to make, and that was that in his opinion no justice was at present to be had for the Catholic community in Portadown; and unless the right

  1253
  hon. Gentleman that night or on some other occasion took the opportunity of washing his hands clear of this foul transaction—because he could call it nothing else—he would have taught a lesson to the people of other parts of Ireland the fruits of which he would live to regret.
  MR. LUNDONsaid he desired to associate himself with his hon. and gallant friend the Member for West Clare. He had never been able to love the Irish Constabulary, but at the same time he believed every man had a right to fair play. He wished to know from the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Irwin, who was concerned in discharging a sergeant and constable in Clare for having put a document into a man's pocket, was the Mr. Irwin who was a witness at The Times Commission, before which Mr. Parnell and his compatriots were impeached and came out with flying colours? He also wished to know whether he was the man who was sent into the gaol at Cork before the trial of Twiss? Why were not the two policemen who were dismissed put on trial in the ordinary way? It seemed to him that there was something mysterious and dangerous behind the action of the Executive. He would not interfere if all the policemen in Ireland were chasing each other into the Irish Sea, but at the same time he hoped that the case to which he referred would be investigated, and that the right horse would be saddled. With reference to the disposition of the money under discussion, Ireland had no interest, except in so far as she had to pay a proportion of it, which it was acknowledged by experts was too great. They in Ireland had had experience of the British Government. They remembered the famous telegram sent to Youghal. "Do not hesitate to shoot" and also the men who were shot down in the square of Mitchelstown.
  MR. REDDYsaid he was glad to have an opportunity of discussing the manner in which justice was administered in Ireland. He would state very briefly the facts of one particular case which could not be contradicted. One evening in June last a tramp went to the workhouse in Birr,
  1254
  and asked to see the master. He was refused admission, and the master stabbed the tramp with a knife. His life was in danger for several weeks. Ultimately the master was brought before the magistrates, and he being an Orangeman, the Catholic magistrates, with a sense of decency and propriety, declined to attend. What was the result? Lord: Boss and his satellites attended, and the accused man. Benjamin Goode, who had been an emergency man for Lord Ross, was admitted to bail. The matter was reported to the Local Government Board, and he himself asked a question about it in the House, but the Chief Secretary gave him a snappish answer. They demanded an inquiry, and applied for the informations to the Clerk of the Petty Sessions, and he refused them. They were then told by the Local Government Board that, not having the informations before them, they could not grant an inquiry. Why did not the Local Government Board take action? If Benjamin Goode were a Catholic, would Lord Ross and his satellites let him out on bail? That was how the law was administered in Ireland. He was prepared to stand by his statements, and defied contradiction. He held the Chief Secretary responsible. They were told to admire the constitution in Ireland, but there was no such thing. He had little confidence in the British Constitution anywhere, but when a man submitted himself to be governed by it, he ought to be governed fairly and impartially. They had heard about Portadown, but there were Portadowns all over Ireland.
  MR. FIELDcalled attention to the fact that the Civil Service Estimates of £142,000 included expenditure in connection with the Board of Trade, and asked why the Irish people should be asked to contribute to the payment of that expenditure, seeing that there was no branch of the Board of Trade in Ireland. There was no means of knowing, in regard to Ireland, statistics of imports and exports which would prove how trade was going on in that country. On the previous day he asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there was any intention to start a department of the Board of Trade, and he replied in the negative. He wished

  1255
  now to ask the Chief Secretary why the Irish people were asked to help to support the Board of Trade, which had no representative in Ireland? Referring to the item in the Estimates for the geological survey, he said that, while the survey in England was completed many years ago, it had not yet been commenced in Ireland. What was more important was that the Education Department at Kensington had not yet begun the soil survey. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laughed were only revealing their ignorance. If they had any acquaintance with the manner in which this matter was attended to in Germany, France, and the United States, hon. Members opposite who laughed would know that this was a vitally important subject. The reason why England was obliged to import so much food was that agriculture was being neglected. If the food supplies of England were shut off for six weeks the people would be starved out. The harbours around the Irish coast were monuments of the incompetence of the Board of Works. These harbours showed that the Board of Works had in their employ the worst engineers in the country. With regard to the rates on Government property, he said he was informed by a gentleman of high official authority that the rates in Dublin were not one-fifth of the value of the property. That was a public scandal. What were the railways in Ireland? They were the worst railways in the world. They had the highest rates and less facilities than existed in any part of the world. They had no cheap trains for working men. In his opinion the railways of Ireland as at present constituted were more dangerous to Irish prosperity than the Irish landlords. The landlords' rents were liable to revision at certain terms, but the railways could and did charge what they liked. He knew how they mangled and maimed the animals they carried, and the owners could get no satisfaction whatever. The railways were a sort of commercial Dublin Castle, and there was not the slightest chance of getting any kind of justice from them. His experience of the Local Government Board in Ireland was that it was a kind of Irish House of Lords. There were three or four non-elected and irresponsible individuals on it whose
  1256
  apparent aim was to make local government as expensive and unpopular as possible. He protested against the system of valuation that prevailed in Ireland at the present time. The five county boroughs in Ireland were to be revalued, and, judging by what had taken place in Belfast, there would be an enormous increase in taxation, because by increasing the rating the Imperial taxation would also be largely increased. If excessive taxation were drawn from a country, that country was bound to be impoverished. That was largely the reason Ireland was so poor, and if the present system of revaluation continued, the effects would be even greater than at present. He therefore appealed to the hon. Members for Belfast to support him in his endeavour to obtain the transplantation of the English system in Ireland. From every piece of Irish legislation the heart was generally left out. That had been the case with the Local Government Act, as the taxation powers were taken out of the hands of the local people. With regard to the reformatory and industrial schools, since the recent action of the Lord Lieutenant the number of children sent to these institutions had enormously decreased. Industrial schools tended to prevent the manufacture of criminals, and since the establishment of these schools there had been a notable diminution in the amount of juvenile crime. The Lord Lieutenant's Order, however, had made it very doubtful whether many of the institutions could remain open much longer, and he hoped that some arrangement would be come to under which the schools could go on as formerly. The increase of lunacy was another serious matter in Ireland which the. Government should take into consideration.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is impossible for me to refer to all the subjects which the hon. Member has just mentioned, but one of them was the question of industrial schools. I am quite alive to the importance of that matter; in fact, I think it so serious a matter that the number of children in industrial and reformatory schools in Ireland far exceeds proportionately the numbers in such schools in England and Scotland that I should show a want of appreciation of its gravity

  1257
  it I attempted to discuss it at this hour of the morning. The hon. Member referred to the railways, and seemed to suggest that as we have courts to fix fair rents we should have courts to regulate railway fares. Fair rents are bad enough, but fair fares would be infinitely worse. The hon. Member ran his fingers through some notes in the scale with reference to the Local Government Board, but as we are to have, as he has told us, a "concerted piece" to-morrow on that subject. I may leave it for the present. In regard to the arrest and subsequent discharge of Ryan, and the dismissal from the police force of a sergeant and constable, the question put to me was why, if we did not prose-cute Ryan, we did not prosecute these two officers of the constabulary. The evidence against Ryan, the constituent of the hon. and gallant Member, was not of a character to justify a prosecution for posting seditious notices, and therefore, after being remanded for three weeks, he was discharged. The two policemen were not prosecuted because the evidence against them did not warrant a prosecution, and yet I felt that their evidence was so unsatisfactory that those officers could not be retained in the force with any advantage to the public. I have nothing more to say on that point, except that I believe the course taken was the right one under the circumstances. It is very difficult to follow the large number of speeches which have been made, but I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Dublin County, North, He made a speech addressed somewhat pointedly towards myself. The subject matter of his speech was a regrettable incident which took place in August last at Portadown, before I was Chief Secretary; but I am prepared to defend the course which the Government took upon that occasion. The hon. Member opposite said that he knows more about Portadown than I do. Perhaps he does, but I know that it is in the borderland between Orange Ireland and Nationalist Ireland, and there the Orange dement is in a large majority. There was a Catholic excursion, and they went off with great public display.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he could not allow a statement like that to pass unchallenged, for they did not go with great display.
  MR. WYNDHAM: J am not making any point against them on that account, for I think it is a subject of great regret that these conflicts should go on, but J have a very clear view as to the duty of the Government in this matter. The Government having received notice that there would be an excursion which would be interfered with, special orders were sent from Dublin Castle that protection was to be given and that adequate police arrangements were to be made. In the opinion of the Government, adequate arrangements were not made, and, as have already told the House, this remissness has been censured, and every precaution will be taken to see that such an incident does not occur again in the future.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he wished—
  MR;. WYNDHAM: J object to giving way to the hon. Member's interruptions.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not interrupt unless he has a point of order to raise. He has no right to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unless the right hon. Gentleman chooses to give way to him.
  MR. CLANCY: But the right hon. Gentleman has given way.
  *MR. SPEAKER: No; the right hon. Gentleman said he refused to give way.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This transaction, is not a matter of much moment, but the attitude of the Government is that protection shall be given to one side or the other and that the public peace shall be preserved. What happened on a particular occasion in last August was surely trivial and obsolete in comparison with the similar incidents which are happening every day. On more recent occasions adequate protection has been given, and the peace has been preserved. I do not think that either Orangemen or Catholics have any cause to complain. I hope that I have now satisfied the hon. Member that I am fully alive to the importance of these difficulties which do arise in such cases as the disturbance at Portadown, and I may add that the Government is determined to give impartial protection to the Orangemen on the one side and to

  1259
  the Nationalists on the other. If I have omitted any other points which have been raised I will undertake to deal with them more fully when they are, raised on the Irish Estimates.
  MR. DOOGANalluded to the occasion of a riot at Stewartstown, where he himself was burned in effigy. Under those circumstances, how could the Chief Secretary say that the Government had taken proper steps to prevent these occurrences? He had always done his level best on all occasions to allay any bitterness in sectarian feelings. In regard to the disorderly proceedings in the town of Dungannon, the Nationalists had a torchlight procession, and he himself told them to go home and avoid rioting. The police took the names of five rioters on each side. They were brought before the magistrates, and the cases were adjourned for a month, and subsequently for another month. Dungannon was proclaimed for seven days. The result ultimately was that no one was convicted. Mow could the right hon Gentleman, who was responsible for the peace of Ireland, defend such action? If the right lion. Gentleman desired to have peace in Ireland he would have to put down partisanship on the magisterial bench. He could give several other instances. They knew that the Orangemen were shielded, that the law was not fairly administered, that the bench was
  packed, and that the scales of justice were weighted. At a public meeting in Dungannon five policemen were injured, and the ratepayers, who had nothing to do with it, had to pay the policemen enormous sums as compensation, He had been asked by the people of Duugannon to bring the matter before the House of Commons, and to ask to have an inquiry into all the circumstances. He hoped that would be done, and that an example would be made. If the offences of one party were not condoned by the local magistrates and by Dublin Castle, Ulster would soon be the most peaceful province in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move that the question be now put.
  MR. DOOGAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter, which concerns the peaceful inhabitants of Duugannon, and I would ask the representative of law and order in Ireland—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not raising any point of order.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 130; Noes 51. (Division List No. 104.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Arkwriglit, John Stanhope

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hobhouse, Henry Somerset E

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dalkeith, Earl of '

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Howard, Capt J. Kent, Faversh

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. (Denbigh

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Knowles, Lees

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finch, George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Erederick N.S.

  Bull, William James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'lets)

  Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene,SirEW.(B'rySEdm'nds

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J (Birm.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Middlemore, John Throgmor'n

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Purvis, Robert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wason, John Cathcart Orkney

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne)

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Rigg, Richard

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Simeon, Sir Barrigton

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, HC (North'mbTynesde)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Asher, Alexander

  Hardie, J, Keir (Meithyr Tydvil)

  O'Doherty, William

  Boyle, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  O'Dowd, John

  Caldwell, James

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Malley, William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Priestley, Arthur

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Cullman, J.

  Macdonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Daffy, William J,

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Elibank, Master of

  Morton, Edw.J. C.(Devonport)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Question put accordingly. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Greene, Sir E. W. Bry. S Edmnds

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Greene,W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chapman, Edward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

  Hamilton, Rt. HnLord G.(Mid'x

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Rare, Thomas Leigh

  Asher, Alexander

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalkeith, Earl of '

  Heath, James (Staffords N.W.)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hobhouse, Henry Somerset, E.

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bafour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

  Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, Fay.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Johnston, Wm, (Belfast)

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finch, George H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Bull, William James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Caldwell, James

  Godson, Sir Angustus Fred'rick

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  The House divided:—Ayes, 140); Noes, (Division List No. 105.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Priestley, Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Middlemore, John Throgmorth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Purvis, Robert

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ratcliffe, R. E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Reckitt, Harold James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

  Rigg, Richard

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, H.C (N'rthmb.Tyneside)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Boyle, James

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  O'Doherty, William

  Burke. E. Haviland-

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O' Dowd, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  M'Dernott, Patrick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

WAYS AND MEANS [23RD MARCH].
Resolutions reported:—

1."That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1900 and 1901, the sum of £5,229,355 2s. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

2."That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, the sum of £44,721,500 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1 BILL).
"To apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, one thousand nine hundred, one
1264
thousand nine hundred and one, and one thousand nine hundred and two, "presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day.

CHINA—ANGLO-RUSSIAN DISPUTE AT TIENTSIN.
On the motion for adjournment—
MR. KEIR HARDIE: Before the question is put, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any information as to the statement made last night that three British soldiers were killed or wounded at Tientsin, and whether or not the peace has been disturbed in that place.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. Sir; I have no information.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Send for Lord Lansdowne.
Adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock.

The Viscount Esher sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Byron took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ELLAND GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for additional provision, of the Elland-cum-Greetland Gas Company under their common seal; together with the clause and Amendments annexed thereto; read and referred to the Examiners.
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  HENRY DIAPER AND COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order) and dispensed with, with respect to a petition of Messrs. Baring Brothers and Company, Limited: Leave given to present the said petition.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Revised regulations of 21st March, 1901, as to certificates of age, proficiency, and school attendance.
  UNITED STATES, No. 1. (1901).
  Correspondence respecting the Convention signed at Washington, 5th February, 1900, relative to the establishment of a communication by ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report and tables for the year 1900.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 AND 1888.
  Special Report by the Board of Trade, under Section 1, Electric Lighting Act, 1888; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill; St. Marylebone Electric Lighting (No. 2.) Order, 1901.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2565. Austria Hungary (financial condition of Hungary).

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT A FELT HAT WORKS, DENTON, NEAP MANCHESTER).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Captain J. H. Thomson, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, and H. S. Richmond, Esq., His Majesty's Superintending Inspector of Factories, on the circumstances and probable causes of the explosion which occurred at the felt hat works of Messrs. Joseph Wilson and Son, Denton, near Manchester, 14th January, 1901.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Abstract of Accounts for the University of Aberdeen, for the year ended 15th September, 1900, being the Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act.
  COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
  Returns from Clerks of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in 1900.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 16th March, 1901, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of junior inspector (science and art) in the department of agriculture, etc., in Ireland, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Statement of the funds, 5th January, 1901. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  TRAMWAYS (CONSENTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition against the Amendment of Standing Order No. 22, of Wandsworth Corporation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition against the sale of, on Sundays of meeting at Chertsey; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MILITARY INSTRUCTION (SCHOOLS AND CADETS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the regulation of military instruction in schools and in cadet corps and companies and cadet battalions was presented by the Viscount Frankfort de Montmorency; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 26.)

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I ask leave to move an Amendment which I regret I have not had time to place on the Paper. It will take the form of a new clause, and it deals solely with cases of subsidence. In many parts of the country libraries are apt in this way to be seriously damaged, and in certain cases, especially in my own county, buildings have a habit of disappearing altogether. In such cases, of course, it is impossible to reinstate the building out of the proceeds of the penny rate. I understand that Lord Windsor is in favour of the, new clause, which has been framed in accordance with the suggestions of the Local Government Board.
  Moved, to insert, as a new clause, "Where in any borough or urban, district the building provided under the principal Act shall be damaged through the subsidence of the ground, any expense incurred by the Town Council or Urban District Council in the repair of the damage thereto shall not be reckoned for the purpose of any limita-
  1064
  tion of rate under Section 2 of that Act." (Lord Newton.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)expressed doubt as to whether the clause would read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I have only just seen this Amendment. It has nothing to do with the Section 2 referred to, nor do I understand it.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: What is "that Act"?
  LORD NEWTON: The principal Act.
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): Would it not be better if the noble Lord placed the new clause on the Paper for the Standing Committee, which will not meet before Easter? There would then be time to consider it.
  EARL SPENCER: I think we ought to have notice of an Amendment of this character before considering it. It is rather irregular to ask us to approve of this clause to-day, when we have not had an opportunity of seeing it.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland suggests that the Amendment should be dealt with by the Standing Committee. I would like to ask if it is clear that the Amendment, which seeks to do away with the limit as to rating, is one that can be dealt with in the Standing Committee?
  *LORD WINDSOR: The new clause would only take effect in a very limited number of cases. In cases where a subsidence has occurred it is impossible, if the limit of a penny rate is insisted upon, to make the building again, available for public use.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Does the noble Lord move the new clause now?
  LORD NEWTON: I am quite indifferent when it is moved. I will move it on the Report Stage if it is desired.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 10:—
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to delete this clause. This is a Bill drafted to amend the English Acts, and to apply it wholesale to Scotland would cause a very great deal of confusion. The Bill, I believe, has been previously before Parliament. It was a private Member's Bill in another place, and was allowed to pass as applying to England and Ireland only. I do not think there has been any suggestion before that it should be applied to Scotland, and, according to the best advice I can get, to do so would be to introduce a great deal of confusion. The first sub-section of this clause interprets the expressions "urban district" and "urban authority," but those words are only used in one clause of the Bill—Clause 5—and that clause is wholly inapplicable to Scotland. In addition, if this Bill was to be applied to Scotland, the proper authority in Scotland would be, not the Local Government Board, but the Secretary for Scotland. I am prepared to prove that the great majority of the clauses are not applicable to Scotland at all. Some of them would be of no use, and some would be positively harmful. I hope, therefore, that as the Bill now stands it will not be applied to Scotland. There is no necessity whatever to do so, although I am quite prepared to admit that there are one or two provisions which, if picked out from the rest of the Bill and specified in an application clause, might possibly be of use in Scotland. I hope that at this stage, at any rate, the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper will be accepted. If representations reach me before the Bill goes to the Standing Committee, I shall be quite prepared to consider the application of one or two of the clauses to Scotland. In the meantime, I beg to move the omission of Clause 10.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 10."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  *LORD WINDSOR: After what my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland has stated, I shall not press the clause. At the same time I may mention that I have had communications from many
  1066
  parts of Scotland from persons interested in public libraries advocating the application of this Bill to Scotland; but as the objections to that course appear to be serious, I will accept my noble friend's suggestion and communicate with him before the Bill is taken in the Standing Committee, in the hope that I may arrange with him that certain parts of the Bill shall apply to Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, To insert as a new clause, 10, "This Act shall not apply to Scotland."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  New Clause agreed to.
  EARL SPENCER: It may be irregular to go back, but I did not understand that the noble Lord opposite desired Ireland to be struck out of the Bill.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I did not.
  EARL SPENCER: But it has been struck out.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would point out that Clause 10 applies only to Scotland.
  EARL SPENCER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12:—
  *LORD WINDSOR: I have communicated with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack with reference to this clause, which provides for the exemption of library managers from liability in certain cases. The noble and learned Lord objects to the clause as it stands, and I propose to amend it in a way which will, I hope, remove that objection. The clause, as I propose to amend it, will read—
  "A person shall not be entitled to institute any legal proceedings against a library authority or any member, officer, or servant thereof, or against the managers of any library established otherwise than under the principal Act, in respect of libellous matter in any book kept for use in, or circulation from, their

  1067
  library, unless he has first instituted legal proceedings against the author, publisher, or printer, and that one of such persons has been convicted or adjudged to pay damages on account of libellous matter contained in the said book."
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 6, to omit all words after 'library' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'unless be has first instituted legal proceedings against the author, publisher, or printer, and that one of such persons has been convicted or adjudged to pay damages on account of the libellous matter contained in the said book.'"—(Lord Windsor.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I thought it desirable that Clause 12 should be amended, on the ground that it was both entangled, and, in come respects, unjust. I am told—and I think there is some foundation for the statement—that people occasionally use the law of libel for the purpose of blackmailing library committees and managers, who have no knowledge of the circumstances, and who invariably yield to the pressure of a threat of action and pay rather I than defend the action. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to say that before a person shall be entitled to proceed against a library committee, he must proceed, in the first instance, at all events, against either the author, printer, or publisher, and that one of such persons shall have been convicted or adjudged to pay damages on account of the libellous matter in question. The sole object of library authorities is to supply literary food to the neighbourhoods in which they may be established, and they ought, therefore, to be protected. I do not think, however, that it would be right to give the immunity to the library authority proposed by sub-Section 2 of this clause, and I am glad that my noble friend proposes to delete that sub-section.
  LORD AVEBURY: The noble and learned Lord will remember that the trustees of the British Museum have had legal proceedings taken against them in connection with books in the Museum library when they had no notice whatever that there was anything libellous in them, in the case of the British Museum there is an obligation which does not apply to other libraries, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is satisfied that the trustees of the British Museum will be sufficiently protected by this clause.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I think so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  Amendment moved—
  "After line 35, to insert 'any expenses incurred by the Common Council of the City of London or by a metropolitan borough council under the Museums and Gymnasiums Act, 1891, so far as they are not defrayed by fees and other money received under the Act, shall be defrayed in the manner in which expenses incurred by that council under the principal Act are payable.'"—(Lord Windsor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to; Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (So. 27.)

  SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN SOLDIERS IN INDIA—USE OF GOVERNMENT CHURCHES.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India how many churches had been built for Scottish Presbyterian soldiers, and at what cost, since the Highland soldiers on their return from Dargai were refused admittance to the garrison church; and whether the Quartermaster General would not be the fittest person to decide as to the use of garrison or cantonment churches. Several questions had been asked on this subject in the House of Commons, and the questioners had always been referred to the Blue-book now on the Table; but that Blue-book did not shed any light whatever upon the reason why a change was made, and why the disposition of the churches was taken away from the military authorities. There were two grievances in this matter —the grievance of the Scottish Presbyterian soldiers, and the grievance of the taxpayers of India. The first that was heard of this by the public was after the battle of Dargai. The Highland regiment, after they had returned from the engagement to the cantonment, were

  1069
  refused admittance to the garrison church. The colonel was told that he might hold the service in the open air, but this he refused to do, saying-he would not expose the soldier's to the risk of sunstroke. Two alternatives were submitted to him. He was offered a dirty barrack room, and, of all places in the world, a disused play house or theatre, in which no Scottish Presbyterian would think of worshipping.
  There was great speculation as to who had proposed this alteration, and some accused the Viceroy, merely on the ground that his father was a clergyman. But the Viceroy arrived in India subsequent to this incident, so could not be held responsible. Moreover, anyone who knew Lord Curzon would not suppose for one moment that he was a man who would inaugurate such a change. It was next suggested that the alteration was made by Dr. Welldon, the Bishop of Calcutta, though the Presbyterians said that on account of his tolerance they ware not afraid of him, but of his successor. But Dr. Welldon was not always of the same mind, as might be seen from some of his public utterances. For instance, he had invited the prayers of non-Christians for Her late Majesty on the occasion of her eightieth birthday; this had raised the Bishop of Colombo against him. Lately he preached in his cathedral on missionaries in a sense which would satisfy the requirements expressed recently by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, though he said nothing less than what a Christian bishop was bound to say; the week after he preached a sermon in support of vivisection. This was most injudicious, as both Hindoos and Mussulmans are strongly against it, besides it being against biblical teaching. Later on he committed himself still further by calling upon the Government of India to have the Bible taught in Hindoo and Mussulman schools. Against this the Bishop of Bombay protested, and said it would be the best way to empty the schools and to break faith with the Hindoos and Mussulmans. It was rumoured that Dr. Welldon was to be translated to the see of London. Since that see had been filled it was still stated that he was coming to London. He (Lord Stanley) thought he ought to be translated from Calcutta, because he was
  1070
  mischievous, but not to any other important see, where he might be equally mischievous.
  With regard to the Scottish Presbyterian soldiers, this question had been wrongly treated as a religious question in the Blue-book. It ought to have been treated as a national political question. The Church of Scotland was equal in importance to the Church of England in the matter of the treatment it deserved. Her late Majesty the Queen used always to attend the Presbyterian Church when in Scotland. It was one of the first principles of the law of nations that countries had equal rights, irrespective of their size, and as the Church of Scotland was the Church of a separate nation it should be treated with full respect. The action of the authorities in disregarding the rights of that Church constituted a slur upon it; and the exhibition of bigotry that had been displayed was to be greatly regretted. It was bigotry such as this with regard to the keys of the shrines in the Holy Land which led to the Crimean War. The Bishop of Lahore had made a proposal that when churches were consecrated only the chancel should be consecrated, and that the nave should be left open to Scottish Presbyterian soldiers. He thought this a very good proposal. Coming to the other grievance—to the taxpayers of India—he contended that it was not right, more especially in the year of famine, that they should be put to great expense in finding more churches for an alien religion when the buildings used by members of the Church of England would suffice. He hoped it was not too late for the Indian Government to take steps to put an end to this state of things. It had a very bad effect on the Hindoos and Mussulmans to see Scottish soldiers out casted in this way, and to see that Christians were so divided that they could not even worship in the same church.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARD-WICKE): The noble Lord has travelled over a somewhat extended area in the course of his remarks, and I shall find it difficult to follow him and to give him information on all the points on which he desires enlightenment. In the first place, I think the noble Lord is under

  1071
  some misapprehension when he says that the question of worship in English churches in India was taken away from the military authorities. Consecrated churches in India, as the Blue-book will show, have always been under the control of the Anglican Church. The question was put to the law officers of the Crown, and they reported that the consecration of Anglican churches involved an undertaking that they would be appropriated to the Church of England, and the Government of India cannot properly require that they should be used by other bodies without the consent of the authorities representing the Church of England. The noble Lord referred to Bishop Well-don, and, though he praised some of his public statements, I understood him to condemn others. None of the matters to which the noble Lord referred in connection with Dr. Welldon's remarks, so far as I can understand, had any reference whatever to the question on the Paper; but, as a matter of fact, Dr. Welldon has stated his opinion on this subject very clearly. In a circular he addressed to the clergy of India in May, 1899, after Lord Curzon had brought in new regulations with regard to the worship of Scotch Presbyterians in Anglican churches, he said that he could not but believe that with reasonable consideration on both sides the difficulty which had arisen with reference to the churches might almost, if not entirely, disappear. He added that where there were no Nonconformist buildings, or none that were sufficiently large or suitable, it could only be a privilege to admit Nonconformists at convenient hours to the use of churches belonging to the Church of England.
  The noble Lord asked me how many churches have been built for Scotch Presbyterian soldiers, and at what cost, since the Highland soldiers on their return from Dargai were refused admittance to the Garrison church. The India Office has no information of any kind as to the refusal to admit these soldiers to the Garrison church. I do not know where the noble Lord has obtained his information. There is no reference to it in the Blue-book in any correspondence that has passed between the Government of India and the Secretary of State during the past two years. As
  1072
  I am not able to say when this incident occurred, I cannot tell the noble Lord how many churches have been built since the incident. But I can tell him that separate churches for Presbyterian worship have already been erected, partly or wholly at the expense of the Government, at Calcutta, Madras, Bangalore Secunderabad, Bombay, Karachi, Poona, Allahabad, and Dalhousie. The noble Lord referred to a proposal that had been made by the late Bishop of Lahore to consecrate the chancel of newly-erected churches, and leave the body of the church open for Presbyterian worship. The Bishop of Lahore made that proposal at the time when the regulations of 1898 were in force. Lord Curzon introduced new regulations in 1899, and I believe the present Bishop of Lahore is perfectly satisfied with the existing arrangements. The Government has decided, wherever the Presbyterian community is sufficiently large, to erect churches for their use which will not be consecrated The places at which these churches will be erected are Rawalpindi, Sialkot, Cherat, Bareilly, Chakrata, and Peshawar.
  The noble Lord next asked me whether the Quartermaster General would not be the fittest person to decide as to the use of garrison or cantonment churches. That is obviously a proposal which it is impossible to consider for a moment, because consecrated churches are by law under the authority of the Bishop. I understood the noble Lord to suggest that they were formerly under the control of the Quartermaster General. I do not think this was the case; and for the very short time in 1898 that the Commander-in-Chief had a certain control, the management gave such offence that it was speedily altered by Lord Curzon. The whole of this difficulty arisesfrom the fact that what the Anglican Church is willing to grant as a grace, the Presbyterians claim as a right. But I believe that the modus vivendi which has been arrived at is working smoothly, and since the new regulations of 1899 there has only been one small instance of any difficulty arising in the working of these regulations.

  PENSIONS TO DISABLED SOLDIERS.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government

  1073
  whether any alterations have been made since the commencement of the South African War in the dates and system of awarding pensions to soldiers disabled by wounds and sickness due to active service; and whether His Majesty's Paymaster General, as Chairman of the Board of Chelsea Commissioners, can give any information on the subject. I have not placed this question on the Paper because I have the slightest misgiving about the Chelsea Commissioners doing their duty with regard to pensions to disabled soldiers. On the contrary, I have every reason to believe that the noble Duke and his colleagues have exercised their discretion with zeal and industry, and with an adequate idea of the importance of pensions to disabled soldiers. When for a short time I was myself a Commissioner at Chelsea Hospital, it certainly did seem to me that the scale of pensions was by no means too liberal; and since I have ceased to be a Commissioner—some six years—the question of pensions has naturally come very much more to the front. Every year that the establishment of the Army is increased the difficulties of recruiting are increased, and there can be few things more detrimental to the recruiting sergeant's success than that after a long and arduous campaign a large number of soldiers should be discharged throughout the kingdom with a pension inadequate to the injuries they received during the campaign.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I have much pleasure in answering the question which the noble Lord has brought before your notice, and perhaps it might be as well if in my reply I gave the noble Lord a short outline of the manner in which the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital are granting pensions to those soldiers who have been discharged from the Service owing to wounds they have received in action, or through sickness, the result of service in the field. I will first, if your Lordships will permit me, bring before your notice and deal with those men who have been discharged for wounds. Previous to the South African campaign, for example the campaign in Egypt, those men who were wounded and consequently discharged
  1074
  from the Service were awarded by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital a pension which the Commissioners considered to represent the permanent loss in earning power to the individual from the result of his wounds. The rate of pension varied, in the case of private soldiers able partially to earn from 6d. to 1s. 6d., and in the case of those totally unable to earn from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. These pensions when granted became permanent; that is to say, the wounded man received in proportion to his disability a permanent pension from the State varying from 6d. to 2s. 6d. a day. That was the system adopted by the Commissioners in granting pensions for wounds before the South African War.
  Since the commencement of that campaign no alteration in the rate of pensions for wounded men has been made in the Royal Warrant. No wounded man, if partially disabled, can get more than Is. 6d. or if totally disabled more than 2s. 6d. But the Commissioners unanimously agreed to make a somewhat new departure in granting the pensions embracing a different principle from that adopted previous to the South African War. They decided in almost every case to grant the maximum amount of pension at once. That may seem to your Lordships a very simple and popular proceeding, but it was undertaken for the following reason. They realised that in the case of a man who had received a wound, necessitating very often an operation and frequently painful treatment, the shock to the system was, as a rule, very great for the first year; that the man required rest and careful treatment, and that his scale of comfort, therefore, should be as high as possible to expedite his recovery. These views, which seemed reasonable, found support from the medical officers whose advice was sought, and they concurred in and supported the views of the Commissioners.
  The effect of granting maximum pensions for the first year to wounded men has had this result, that many men who under the old system, would only have been awarded 6d., but who have been granted 1s. 6d. a day, have, with the extra shilling, been able to obtain a higher scale of comforts, and at the end of one year we have found, on examining their condition, that they have recovered

  1075
  in a most satisfactory manner. I do not think that I should occupy your Lordships' time with numerous cases. Two instances will suffice to prove my point. A private in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders received a wound at the battle of Magersfontein. The wound disabled him one half. This man formerly would have been awarded 6d. or 9d. a day, but he was granted 1s. 6d. After a year's rest the Medical Report says his wound only slightly interferes, and he has therefore been awarded a permanent pension of 9d. The wisdom of giving the higher rate of pension is manifest in this way, that this man has recovered in one year from his disability, and has thus been enabled to return to civil employment, and to earn 25s. a week as a builder's labourer. There is another instance of a private in the Rifle Brigade who received a gunshot wound in the head. His wound disabled him one half. He was awarded 1s. 6d. This year he was so far recovered that we were enabled to pension him permanently at 9d. a day. He is now earning as a bricklayer's labourer £1 a week. There are many other instances, my Lords, of men who were wounded and who were granted 1s. 6d. for one year, and who after one year, have been enabled to take up civil employment and to earn sufficient to justify us in placing them on a permanent pension of from 6d. to 1s.
  It appears, therefore, that although the change of system involves a greater expenditure in earlier stages, nevertheless there are good reasons for believing that it secures ultimately a greater advantage to the wounded soldier, with a proper regard to the economy of the public service. After twelve months, all the cases of men who have been wounded in the South African War are again brought up before the Commissioners. Their condition is examined, and we then grant them a permanent pension on a scale which appears to us to be a right and proper one. The men who, after a year, are found to be slightly impaired, receive 6d. a day: those who are found to be impaired, 9d. to 1s.; those who are materially impaired, which would be nearly equal to the loss of a limb. 1s. 3d.; those whose wounds are equal to the loss of a limb, Is. 6d.; and those who are wholly unable to contribute,
  1076
  through the result of their wounds, 2 s. 6d.
  I now turn, with your Lordships' permission, from the discussion of the wounded to the consideration of those rendered unfit or broken by disease. In this branch of the subject we have again modified the original conditions. Formerly—that is to say, before the war—the men who were discharged for sickness received daily pensions of 6d. if they had served under six years; of 7d. if they had served between six and twelve years; and of 8d. if they had served between twelve and fourteen years, and a halfpenny a day in addition for every year's service after fourteen years. All these pensions granted to men of under fourteen years service were conditional; that is to say, the Commissioners could at any time after the first year, at their discretion, make the pensions permanent, or they could discontinue them in the case of any man who was able to earn a full livelihood. In April, 1900, a warrant was issued enabling the Commissioners, to award from 6d. to 1s. at their discretion to privates whose disability was due to exposure in the field. The rate awarded was to depend on the loss of wage-earning power, and the length and character of the service were, of course., to be taken into consideration. Again, following the same principle, which I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships, the Commissioners found it advisable to grant the maximum amount —that is. 1s.—in almost every case, in order to enable the men to have sufficient means to accelerate their recovery.
  Since the South African War, and until quite recently, the Commissioners have been granting 1s. a day to all those who have been discharged from the Service through sickness in that campaign. Yet even this amount was deemed not to be sufficient, and numerous cases were brought before our notice of men who were totally unable to earn through the effects and results of severe illness contracted during the South African campaign. Among the cases-that came before our notice there is one striking example—the case of a gunner. This man was invalided from South Africa with a bad attack of enteric, and when his case came before the Commissioners the Medical Report said that the

  1077
  whole of one side of his body had become completely paralysed, that he was quite unable to work for his living, and that be was never likely to recover. This man was living near or among other discharged privates who were in receipt of 1s. 6d. a day, the result of wounds, but they were in a better condition than be was because they were able to get about and earn something towards their livelihood. In this instance the man did not wish to press his claim, for to use his own words, he "did not desire to base any claim he might have on the compassion of his country or any flimsy pretext of that sort."
  It seems, therefore, to the Commissioners that, while it may be more honourable to be wounded in action against the enemy than to be reduced by disease, the misfortune to the individual is the same, and that, though the one case appeals more strongly to the public imagination, both have an equal claim upon the public bounty. We made a strong recommendation to higher authorities, in which we received the support and assistance of the Junior Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, who is the Treasury representative on the Chelsea Board. Our representation has had this result, that we have been granted power to treat those cases of disease due directly and wholly to war service at the same rate, and on the same scale, as that allowed for disabilities from wounds, which your Lordships will recollect is 1s. 6d. for those who are partially disabled and 2s. 6d. for those totally disabled. I have not alluded to the rates of pension granted to non-commissioned officers, for your Lordships will readily understand that we are guided by the same principles, though, of course, the awards are at a higher rate. I may mention here that this somewhat new principle of awarding pensions is not retrospective; it does not apply to any campaign previous to the commencement of the South African War.
  I fear that I have answered the noble Lord's question at some length, and I fear, also, that I have trespassed too long on your Lordships' time in venturing to explain the principle upon which the award of pensions are now being granted; but I have done so because I feel that it is a subject which affects the
  1078
  comfort and well-being of a great number of those who have served their country with distinction in the past. I will only venture to add, in conclusion, that it has, been the earnest endeavour of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital to grapple with the subject of pensions, and, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, to award them in a liberal and generous spirit. We have felt that, in dealing liberally with those who have served their country well in the past, we will induce others to serve her well in the future; and that, of the vast expenditure which this war has necessitated, no part will be more readily and cheerfully borne by the nation than the comparatively small sum which is required to provide honourably for those who have lost their health or strength in the public service.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am sure your Lordships must have listened with much satisfaction to the clear statement made by the noble Duke on this most important matter. It seems to me that the rules laid down by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital are admirably suited to the occasion, but I hardly think it is necessary, in the case of the loss of a limb, to call upon a man to come up again at the end of a year. I trust that the Commissioners will exercise pressure with the authorities in order to get the rule with regard to soldiers who have entirely lost their health in the operations in South Africa extended to other campaigns. There are no doubt cases of soldiers who have suffered from disease contracted in the hardships of the Tirah campaign, and who are equally deserving of liberal treatment with those who have suffered from disease contracted in South Africa. I commend these two suggestions to the noble Duke.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): Perhaps it might interest the noble Earl to know that a Committee has been appointed at the War Office to discuss the whole question of pensions, and will go into the point he has mentioned.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I have heard with great satisfaction the statements of the noble Duke and the Under Secretary for War. I suppose some discretion is

  1079
  exercised by the Commissioners in the granting of the maximum pension at once. So far as I can gather from the statement of the noble Duke, a man who is only slightly injured, and whose injury does not interfere at all with the performance of his ordinary work as a citizen, is given the same pension as a man who is almost completely disabled—namely, 1s. 6d. a day for the first year.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am afraid I cannot have explained myself clearly. Men who are wounded are pensioned at 1s. 6d. a day if they are partially disabled, and at 2s. 6d. if they are totally disabled. At the end of the first year they come up for re-examination, and if they have returned to civil employment and can earn their own livelihood, they get a permanent pension of 6d. or 9d.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I do not think that quite answers my point. I entirely agree that disease and wounds ought to stand on the same footing with regard to a pension, but I cannot find in the Royal Warrant any distinction made between wounds and disease. The words are, I believe, "wounds or injuries received on active service or on actual military duty." I was surprised to find that it required a new Warrant in 1900 to include exposure in the field under the head of disease.
  *LORD RAGLAN: Formerly it was necessary to make a special application to the Treasury in any case of disability through illness. The present arrangement is that, with the concurrence of the Treasury representative on the Board of Commissioners, these cases are dealt with without the necessity of making a special application to the Treasury.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six of the clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.