Sitting of 21 May 1901

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which
  756
  are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  Cowes Ferry Bill [Lords].

  Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords].

  Otley Gas Bill [Lords].

  South Eastern and London, Chatham,

  and Dover Railways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY BILL.
  DUBLIN (EQUALISATION OF RATES) BILL.

    GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    IRISH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL.
King's Consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (AMENDMENT OF ACTS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
PEMBROKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (COUNTY OF DUBLIN) BILL.
  SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL
    TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL,
    Read the third time, and passed.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
NAVAL WORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Admiralty under the Naval Works Act 1895; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pretyman and Mr. Arnold-Forster.
NAVAL WORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Admiralty under the Naval Works Act, 1895," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]
ARDROSSAN GAS AND WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION.
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Ardrossan Gas and Water; ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
ARDROSSAN GAS AND WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Ardrossan Gas and Water," presented; to be read a second time upon Monday, 10th June, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Biggleswade Water Board, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway, Petition
758
for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the Cromer Water Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel James M'Calmont and Mr. O'Neill.

BIGGLESWADE WATER BOARD.
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Alwyne Compton and Mr. Guy Pym.

PETITIONS.
  CLUBS (LICENSING AND SUPERVISION)-
  Petition from Annandale, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petition from Leeds, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Yeovil, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, in favour to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment, from Kingussie and Dunfermline; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Fulham; Walthamstow; Leyton; Budleigh Salterton; Southwark, and Wells; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Coalville, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Exmouth; Pimlico; Easthampstead; Folkestone; Wells; Nanstallon; Hoxton; Salisbury; Birmingham (two); Westbourne Park; Walworth; Sidmouth; Fletcher's Bridge; Bodmin; Bolton; Pickering; Doncaster; Bangor; Kettering; Cheshire, and Portsmouth; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Caithness; Barr; Hutton and Corrie; Annandale, and Dryfesdale; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petitions against, from Reigate; Morton-on-the-Hill, and Great Driffield; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  Return [presented 20th May] to be printed. [No. 183.]
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Return [presented 20th May] to be printed. [No. 184.]

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion
  760
  that the Loch Leven Water Power Order ought to be dealt with by Private Bill, and that the Edinburgh Corporation, Greenock Corporation, and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Orders may proceed as Provisional Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 185.]

  AFRICA (No. 3, 1901).
  Copy presented, of correspondence relating to the murder of Mr. Jenner and the Ogaden Punitive Expedition [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,603 and 2,604 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MILITIA TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS).
  Copy presented, of the Militia Training Return, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (RULES FOR CONVICT PRISONS).
  Copy presented, of Draft of Rules for Convict Prisons proposed to be made under the Prison Act, 1898, with regard to the Dietary of Convicts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 186.]
  PRISONS (RULES FOR LOCAL PRISONS)^
  Copy presented, of Draft of Rules for Local Prisons proposed to be made under the Prison Act, 1898, with regard to the Dietary of Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 187.]
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act for the county of Cardigan (First Minute) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 16 Selections from Colonial Medical Reports for 1898 and 1899) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSPORTS).
  Return ordered, "showing the name, tonnage, and speed of each vessel employed to convey troops to South Africa since the 1st day of April, 1900, and up to and ending 31st day of March, 1901, the date and port of her departure from these shores and arrival at Cape Town, Durban, or elsewhere, respectively, including arrival at and departure from

  Name of vessel.

  Tonnage.

  Speed.

  Date of departure and port.

  Date of arrival and departure from intermediate ports.

  Date arrival intermediate ports.

  Time occupied on voyage.

  Number of troops carried.

  Number of horses or mules carried.

  Number of horses or mules lost on voyage.

  Whether provided with new pattern or old pattern fittings.

  Whether provided with slings for each horse or mule.

  Port.

  Departure.

  Port.

  Arrival.

  Departure.

  Cape Town.

  Durban.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 184, of Session 1900)."—(Sir John Colomb.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—POSITION OF CHARTERED COMPANY AND DE BEERS COMPANY.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FTJRNESS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when His Majesty's Government propose to demand payment of the indemnity due from the Chartered Company to the late Transvaal Republic; whether the Government have paid £83,000 to the De Beers Company during the siege of Kimberley; whether the De Beers Company have since made a further claim for £54,000, or any other sum; and, if so, whether the particulars of these claims will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): In reply to the first
  intermediate ports of call; the number of troops and horses or mules carried on each occasion, the number of horses or mules lost on voyage, vessels provided with new pattern fittings, vessels provided with old pattern fittings, vessels provided with slings for each horse or mule, vessels not so provided; and the time occupied by each vessel in making the voyage, in the following form:—
  part of the question I must refer the hon. Baronet to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs on the 1st of April, † The second question should have been addressed to the Secretary of State for War, who informs me that a telegram has been received from the general officer commanding lines of communication stating that no payment has been made to the De Beers Company, but that claims from that company amounting to about £54,000 are under consideration. The particulars of these claims not having been received, it is impossible to say whether it will be desirable to lay them on the Table of the House.

  BOER PRISONERS IN ST. HELENA— SHOOTING OF A PRISONER BY A SENTRY.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask if I should be in order in putting to the Secretary for War the question which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford, and which has not been asked. I wish to ask the question
  † See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xcii., page 329.

  763
  because it rather reflects on certain persons. The question is "Whether any inquiry has been instituted into the charge recently made against a sentry at St. Helena of having shot a Boer prisoner dead whilst singing a hymn during the service of the Christian Endeavour Society, and whether any report has bean received by him; if so, will he state the effect of it."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): My attention has been drawn to this statement. The reports from the officer commanding the troops at St. Helena show that there is no truth whatever in the statements made, which appeared in the Review of Reviews. The Boer prisoner alluded to as being shot at St. Helena was endeavouring to climb over the wire fence enclosing the prisoners' camp in the early morning before daylight. This assertion, like others persistently disseminated by this journal, is untrue and mischievous.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it in accordance with the rules of the House for one Member to put a question which stands in the name of another?
  MR. SPEAKER: I was rising to explain that the hon. Member for North Islington would not be in order in asking the question, but the Minister is in order in answering the question on the Paper, although it is not asked, if he thinks it is in the interests of the public, and I understood that that was the object of the Minister in rising.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Of course, if it were in order, I could ask any number of questions.

  ALLOWANCES TO INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state in how many instances the pensions and allowances of soldiers invalided from South Africa have been reconsidered since 18th March, with the view of increasing such pensions and allow-
  764
  ances, and in how many cases the grants have been increased to sums varying from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per day, the amounts invalided soldiers are entitled to according to the statement of the Paymaster-General; and whether, in cases where increases have been decided upon, such increases will be paid from the dates when the soldiers were first placed on the pension list.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The cases of 281 pensioners have been reconsidered since the 18th March, and increased awards have been made. In addition, twenty-three pensioners will be awarded increase of pension by the next board of the Chelsea Commissioners, and 138 cases are in progress of examination. The increase has, as a rule, been given from the first of the current quarter. Pensions are not made generally retrospective.

  COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Secretary of State for War received a petition last December asking for an ex gratia allowance to be made to a poor woman of Blackpool, Cork, whose son, John Addis, was killed by the bursting of a gun at Cork Harbour Fort in the summer of 1900; and whether, in view of the fact that this soldier was the main support of his mother, and was killed in the execution of military duty, the authorities will take her case into favourable consideration.
  LORD STANLEY: The petition has been received. The regulations do not admit of any grant to the mother from public funds.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Cannot something be done for the woman out of the Patriotic Fund?
  LORD STANLEY: Representations can be made, but we have no power except to do that. I will refer the matter to the Patriotic Fund Commissioners.

  ARMY ORGANISATION-GOVERNMENT SCHEME—LEGISLATION.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether any portion of the proposed Army reform scheme requires legislation.
  MR. BRODRICK: A short Bill may be required in connection with the Yeomanry.

  RECRUITING-PHYSICAL STANDARDS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the minimum standard of height v. chest measurement at the present time, and how many specials there are among the 16,000 men recruited in the first four months of this year.
  LORD STANLEY: The various minimum standards are laid down in the Recruiting Regulations, pages 51 to 54; those for the Infantry are 5 ft. 3 in. and 33 in. respectively. From the 1st January to the 27th April, 17,311 recruits were taken, of which 5,790 were specials.

  COLOURS FOR VOLUNTEER CORPS.
  MR. HELME: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that, for the first time in the history of our country, Volunteers have rendered active service at the front, His Majesty's Government are willing, in recognition of such services, to so far modify paragraph 870 of the Volunteer Regulations as to enable Volunteer corps who have supplied contingents for the war in South Africa to receive and carry standards or colours presented to them by local authorities or persons on their return home.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Volunteer corps who supplied contingents were nearly all rifle corps, and rifle corps of the Line do not carry colours. No local authorities have ever been permitted to present troops with colours which are to be carried on parade, and I do not think it would be advisable to establish such a precedent.
  MR. HELME: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be an advantage, and develop the interest taken in the Volunteer movement, if—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LONDON IRISH VOLUNTEERS AND THE KING'S DECLARATION.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Roberts v. O'Sullivan, recently tried at Bow Street before Sir Frederick Lushington, in which the defendant, a private in the London Irish Volunteers, who resigned his membership of the corps because of the King's Declaration that the Roman Catholic religion is idolatrous, was fined £1 15s., the maximum, for non-efficiency, and £1, the maximum, for surrendering his rifle in an improper condition, and costs; and seeing that the claim originally made was only for 10s., and that though the usual fine for surrendering a rifle unfit for immediate service is only 1s. or 2s. 6d., the maximum fine was imposed in this case, will he inquire into the case with the view of having the fines imposed reduced; and can he state how many Volunteers have resigned previously, or what fines, if any, each of them has had to pay.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The defendant was summoned for 35s. being the amount of the capitation grant which he had failed to earn by rendering himself efficient, and for 20s. for damage to his rifle through neglect to clean it after use. The magistrate found that both sums were due, and I have no power to review his decision.
  MR. NANNETTI: With a view of the great hardship of this particular case, and the feeling that the heavy penalty was imposed simply because the Volunteer resigned in consequence of the obnoxious oath, will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry?
  MR. RITCHIE: I can make no further inquiry into the matter, with regard to which I have no jurisdiction whatever.

  VICTUALLING OF THE NAVY— DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Departmental Committee appointed last year to inquire into the victualling of the Navy has presented its Report; if so, whether he can state their recommendations, and what reforms are likely to be introduced.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Committee has presented its Report. The evidence and recommendations will require careful consideration, and I am not yet able to make any statement as to what action may be taken by the Admiralty as a result of the Committee's investigations.

  WEST INDIA DOCK NAVAL STORES— PACKERS' WAGES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that some men are now employed at the West India Dock Naval Stores packing at a weekly wage of 21s., others doing similar work at 20s.; and whether, seeing that this arrangement gives rise to dissatisfaction, he will take steps to raise the wages of the latter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The wages of twenty of the more experienced men engaged in packing electrical instruments and other articles calling for special care in handling were recently raised from 20s. to 21s. The fact that the wages of some of the more competent men have been increased does not in itself seem sufficient reason for raising the wages of the remainder. I can assure the hon. Member that the question of the position of the remaining men shall not be lost sight of.

  CHINA-REPORTED FIRING BY GERMAN TROOPS ON A BRITISH BOAT.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a few days ago, at Tientsin, a tugboat, the "Ewo," flying the British flag, was fired upon by German troops, and that two of the crew were wounded, and the others imprisoned and flogged by the
  768
  German authorities; and whether His Majesty's Government have taken any, and, if so, what action in this matter.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): The British Consul General at Tientsin has reported that on the 4th instant a tug and lighter flying the British flag collided with a German pontoon bridge, and that German soldiers fired on the tug, wounding two Chinese, and subsequently boarded the lighter and took the crew on shore to the barracks. The matter was represented by the British general commanding at Tientsin to the German general, and the latter replied expressing regret for what had happened and promising to take measures to prevent similar violence in future.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is there any foundation for the statement that some of the crew of this boat were flogged in a German prison?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I shall have an opportunity of saying a word or two on this later on.

  CHINA AND THE POWERS—PRESENT POSITION.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to our position and that of the other Powers in China, and as to the progress of the negotiations with the Government of that country and with the Russian Government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the noble Lord at the same time state whether there is any foundation for the statement referred to in my question that some of the crew of a tugboat flying the British flag were flogged in a German prison, and, if so, whether any compensation will be asked for from the German Government.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am afraid that the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Barnsley is of so wide a character that I must ask the indulgence of the House in giving such a

  769
  reply as may, I hope, be considered adequate. The question really relates to the whole situation in China. There is not much that I have to communicate, but I am aware that the House is anxious for information. The question which has most interested the Government recently in the negotiations with China is the matter of the indemnities; and upon that, as the House is aware, a long time back I had the honour of informing it that, in our view, it was very important to bear in mind, in fixing the amount of the indemnities and the method of paying them, that we should not injure in any way the commercial interests of this country. Our endeavour, therefore, was as far as possible to moderate the demands for indemnities, and that they should not in any way infringe upon the commercial interests of Great Britain, and with that view we have been opposed to raising the Chinese tariff as has been suggested to the figure of 10 per cent. in order to provide the necessary security. On the contrary, we have, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, declined to accede to any such suggestion, and have signified that we should only be ready, on behalf of Great Britain, to consent to the raising of the tariff to that figure upon the commercial improvement of the Chinese fiscal system, such as the abolition of the likin and other matters which I do not propose to trouble the House with. But I would ask the House to recollect that in moderating the demands for the indemnities there are more ways than one of achieving that object, and that the method in which the payment is made has a great deal to do with the burdens of its incidence on the Chinese. That brings me to a question of some little interest, namely, the proposal which has been made that the indemnities should be defrayed by means of a loan, which should be guaranteed by what I may call the concert of the Powers. Undoubtedly the obligation under which the Chinese Government rests to pay an indemnity is a joint obligation, and if it were necessary to use force, which I hope may never be the case, the force which would have to be employed would be the joint force of the Powers. But the objections to a joint guarantee are so obvious that His Majesty's Government will have nothing to do with it. It
  770
  is quite clear, considering that our interest and credit stand higher than those of any other Power, and that the sum of money which we claim to receive as an indemnity is a very small portion of the whole, that we should have been nothing short of insane if we had agreed to a joint guarantee for the loan. I do not know that there is anything else which will interest the House, except perhaps a word about the punishments. With regard to the punishment of the high-placed delinquents who were responsible for the murder of various Europeans in the attack upon the legations, six have been killed, three have been banished, and two have been deprived of their posthumous honours.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Killed by whom?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Three have been executed and three have been permitted to commit suicide. As regards the provincial criminals, a demand has been made for the punishment of a certain number of individuals; and, considering the awful character of the murders which have been committed, I do not think that the demand can be considered excessive. Various degrees of punishment have been demanded for 107 individuals. That has been a joint demand, with the exception of the Government of Russia, who have not joined in it. On the whole, we may say that matters in China are entering upon a more pacific phase, and we hope that before long there may be an opportunity of withdrawing a large portion of our force. That, of course, must depend upon how far the Chinese Government go in fulfilling the minimum demands of the Powers which have been made; but already over 3,000 troops are under orders to evacuate China, and we hope that before many months have elapsed they will be increased by a still larger body.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: That is, our troops?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Yes. I do not know that there is anything else except the question of the hon. Member for East Clare. I have already informed him that it is a fact that this gunboat was

  771
  fired on by the German guard, and that the German general has expressed his regret and has informed the British general that no such violence should again occur. The hon. Member asked me whether something beyond the shooting took place, and I believe I am accurate in saying that there was other violence as well.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Flogging?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not remember that. There was other violence as well, but of course that comes in the general question. [Nationalist laughter.] I do not understand the reason for that laughter.
  MR. FLYNN: You have no sense of humour.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The German general has signified that similar violence will not occur again, and I should have thought hon. Members would be satisfied with that assurance.
  MR. DILLON: Was the British Government satisfied with that assurance?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I wish to know whether it is a fact that a certain number of Chinese sailors, sailing under the British flag, were flogged in a German prison, and, if so, whether the German authorities will be asked for any compensation.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have no information regarding the hon. Member's statement in the supplementary question. As to whether any compensation is to be claimed, that is, of course, a matter for the aggrieved parties to decide. We are inquiring into that very point at this moment. There is another matter with respect to Tientsin which the House will probably like to hear about. There was a question on the Paper addressed to me in the name of the hon. Member for East Bristol, and, in reply to that, I have to say that the Russian Government, on 20th March, proposed that all questions of title and proprietary rights which had arisen out of the Tientsin incident should be reserved for examination by the two
  772
  Governments, and that, meanwhile, the troops on both sides should be withdrawn from the disputed point. To this proposal His Majesty's Government assented, and the troops were withdrawn accordingly. On the 18th instant, however, certain notice boards and boundary stones implying possession were reported to us as having been erected by the Russian authorities upon the ground claimed by the Chinese Railway administration. We have no reason to believe that this has been done with the knowledge of the Russian Government; and the House is aware that it not infrequently happens that things are done in China by Russian authorities which, we have every reason to believe, are against the wishes of the Russian Government. The matter has at once been brought under the notice of the Russian Government, and we are waiting their reply. Hitherto the examination of these questions has been deferred until the pressure of more important negotiations upon the time of our representatives should become relaxed; but the settlement will require investigation on the spot into any evidence, documentary or otherwise, which may be forthcoming. Into this we hope soon to enter. I have said all I have to say on the Chinese question, and I hope it will be sufficient for the House at the present moment.

  CROYDON BRAWLING CASE.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the case of a man named Catterall, who was charged at Croydon on Saturday with brawling, and whether, as the defendant admitted the charge, and the majority of the magistrates dismissed the case, he will follow the Irish precedent, and direct the Public Prosecutor to send a Bill to the grand jury against Catterall.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have seen a report of the case, but it appears not to be one in which I can interfere with the jurisdiction of the magistrates.

  MANNING OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade

  773
  whether the Board of Trade have laid down any regulations defining what constitutes the proper manning of ships, and whether there is any means at present of preventing ships going to sea without having amongst the crew a due proportion of proved A.B.'s.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): In order to secure the efficient manning of emigrant ships, steam and sailing, the Board of Trade have laid down specific regulations and scales for the guidance of their officers. With regard to other vessels instructions have also been issued to secure such manning as will provide for an effective watch and for the detention of any under-manned ship. There is no provision either in the Merchant Shipping Act or in the regulations issued under it which requires the detention of a ship unless any particular proportion of the crew are proved A.B.'s.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be kind enough to answer that portion of my question in which I inquire whether the Board of Trade have laid down any regulations defining what constitutes proper manning?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have answered that question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No, Sir; with great respect you have not. I again ask whether the Board of Trade consider that the shipping of men who are not proved A.B.'s constitutes under-manning?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order order! The hon. Member has complained that the question on the Paper has not been answered, but he is now putting a question which is not on the Paper. If he wants further information he had better put the question down in the ordinary way.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman says he did answer my question I did not catch his reply. Perhaps he will be kind enough to repeat that portion of
  774
  his answer in which he deals with my question asking whether any regulation of the Board of Trade defines what constitutes proper manning.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member is now asking what the regulations are. I understood his question on the Paper to be as to whether any regulations are laid down, and I have no objection to repeating the answer I gave to it. (The right hon. Gentleman then again read his answer.)
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: With great respect, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot give me a more definite or distinct answer to that portion of my question in which I inquire whether any of the regulations which the Board of Trade have laid down define what proper manning is? I am aware that there are regulations to secure proper manning, but I want to know is there any specific regulation which he can refer me to which defines what proper manning means?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the hon. Member desires to know exactly what the regulations are he had better put down a further question, but whether I shall be able to answer it within the limits of a reply I cannot say.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Perhaps if I direct a letter to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject he could answer it more fully?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course.

  BUTTER ADULTERATION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that new milk heavily charged with boracic acid or water is forced by means of a spiral machine into butter, which increases its weight and bulk; and what steps he will take, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent such adulterations of butter in the interests of the public.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The facts as stated in the question

  775
  are, I believe, correct. At Longton, on the day following the Bath decision, a conviction was obtained against the same firm; and I understand that it is to be appealed against. Other prosecutions are being held over until the decision on appeal has been given. The settlement of a butter standard, to which I referred in answer to another question of the hon. Member, will itself, I hope, go far to prevent such questions arising.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that boracic acid, in addition to being an adulterant, is most dangerous to health?
  MR. HANBURY: I should not like to answer that without notice.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in France the authorities refuse to allow the use of it?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state when he proposes to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of the quantity of water to be legally allowable in butter; what will be the nature of the Committee; what will be the character of the evidence submitted to it, and where will the inquiry be held.
  MR. HANBURY: The Committee will be appointed as soon as we have collected sufficient expert evidence and analytical facts to lay before it. The Committee will be of the same character as that to which the question of a milk standard was submitted. We are in communication with the Irish Department as to the constitution of it.

  STEPNEY AND POPLAR MAIN ROADS.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the London County Council has repudiated its liability to provide for the maintenance of the main roads in the boroughs of Stepney and Poplar; and, if so, what steps the Board proposes to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have not received any representations on this subject, and am therefore not in a position to say whether the case is one in which I am empowered to take action. If any representations are made the matter will receive my consideration.

  SUNDAY CLOSING OF PUBLIC-HOUSES IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has noted the statement of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland in his annual report, that the extension of the Public-Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act of 1887 to all places would conduce to greater peace and order, and enable the police to give more undivided and earlier attention to night patrolling and watching; and whether he is prepared to take any step to give effect to that extension.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Yes, Sir, the recommendation quoted by the hon. Member stands tenth among twelve suggestions which the Inspector of Constabulary puts forward in his annual report. It will be considered on its merits along with the other eleven, but no undertaking to propose legislation can be given at present.

  CONTINUATION CLASSES IN SCOTLAND.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can give any information as to the relation of the authorities managing continuation classes to county technical instruction committees whose grant is in part applicable to the same purposes and which have in fact been so applying it, but who do not know whether it is expected or allowed to subsidise or to assume any responsibility with regard to continuation classes in future.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Scotch Education Department will be glad to give any information in their power in regard to any question raised by the technical committees of county councils with reference to continuation

  777
  classes. They are not aware that there is any change in their relation to these classes consequent on the new Code; but any attempt to discuss the powers of these committees in this matter in an answer to a question would certainly give rise to misapprehension.

  MISDIRECTED TELEGRAMS.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in the case of a telegram having been misdirected, there is any rule which prohibits the postmaster at the office at which the telegram has been received from informing the person for whom it is intended of the fact of its having been received; whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience which was recently caused at Grosmont by the alleged existence of such a rule; and whether, if such a rule exists, he can see his way to recommending that greater latitude should be allowed to postmasters to permit of their divulging in such cases the fact that a telegram has been received, though not its contents.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The circumstances under which telegrams are misdirected vary so greatly that the Postmaster General would prefer not to answer upon a hypothetical case. It is of course of great importance in the interests of the public that information respecting telegrams should not be divulged. Postmasters are, however, called upon to exercise a reasonable discretion. The Postmaster General has made inquiry in the case of Grosmont, a village in Herefordshire. The telegrams were simply addressed to the name of the village, and it was not at first known for whom they were intended. It eventually appeared that there had been a misapprehension on the part of the senders, the telegrams being intended for a doctor at Grosmont.

  KENMARE CONSTABULARY AND HARVEST WORK.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state
  778
  on how many occasions during the last harvest members of the constabulary force at Kenmare, county Kerry, were employed in saving the hay on the private grounds of the local district inspector; whether the performance of such work for the district inspector is part of the duties of the constabulary and is sanctioned by the Irish Government; and will he cause a full inquiry to be instituted.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): On two occasions last year a couple of constables stationed at Kenmare voluntarily assisted the district inspector in the manner referred to. There is nothing in the regulations prohibiting members of the force from employing their spare time in this manner.

  CAVAN OLD GAOL.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the building which was formerly used as a gaol for county Cavan was built by the Grand Jury of Cavan out of the rates of the county, and that it cost over £20,000 to erect this gaol and the buildings connected with it; that after it had ceased to be used as a gaol the County Council of the county of Cavan informed the General Prisons Board, Ireland, that it was prepared to take over this building or such portion of it as was not required for a Bridewell and utilise it for the benefit of the ratepayers at whose cost it was erected, and that the General Prisons Board since this application was made to them have handed over this building to the military authorities; and will he state by what authority the General Prisons Board handed over the property of the ratepayers of county Cavan to the War Department without compensation, and will the Government pay the cost of the construction of this building or hand it back to the county council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The building formerly used as a prison at Cavan was built by the Grand Jury out of county rates, but at what cost I am unable to say. Section 31 of the Prisons Act of 1878 authorises the Prisons Board, within twelve months after the closing

  779
  of a prison, to allow it to be used for any public purpose, with the consent of the Treasury. Subject to this provision the prison was handed over to the military authorities in August last with all liability for rent and cost of maintenance There is no power to award compensation, as suggested.

  FISHERY LOANS IN IRELAND.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the amended rules for the administration of Loans under the Sea and Coast Fisheries Fund (Ireland) Act, 1884, will be printed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rules, I am informed, have been printed.
  MR. POWER: They are not available at the office.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will see that they are made accessible.

  KILMALLOCK PETTY SESSIONS HOUSE.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 15th January, 1900, the clerk of petty sessions and custodian of the court house in Kilmallock, county Limerick, on behalf of the justices of the petty sessions house in Kilmallock, wrote to the clerk of the Kilmallock District Council saying that he could not allow the petty sessions house to be again used by the district council without the written permission of the justices usually presiding there; and that, in reply to the secretary of the Limerick County Council, on behalf of the said council, who, in a communication of 9th April, 1900, addressed the justices of the Kilmallock petty sessions district with a view to obtaining the use of the court house for quarterly meetings of the Kilmallock District Council, the magistrates in question, at their meeting on 4th May following, refused the use of the court house for holding their meetings to the district council; is he aware that the district council intend to hold no future meetings in the board room, which is insecure and does not afford accommoda-
  780
  tion; and will he make an order compelling the magistrates to give the use of the court house to the district council.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): With the permission of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this question. The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph. The district council have no right whatever to the use of the petty sessions court house, nor have the Government any right or power to make the order suggested.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say how much of the thirty millions of money to be expended on the purchase of lands in Ireland under the Land Purchase Act of 1891 was allocated to the county of Limerick, how much of that sum has been expended and how much remains over; and will he lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the various sums set apart for the different counties and how they now stand, and what dispositions have up to this been made of those moneys.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At the request of my hon. friend, I will reply to this question. The capital value of the share of county Limerick in the cash and contingent portions of the guarantee fund under the Act of 1891 represents a sum of £1,361,136. The total issues in the county to the 1st instant have been £510,000. A Return such as indicated in the question will be laid upon the Table.

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER'S SALARY.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the teacher of the national school in District No. 46, whose roll number is 8,316, has not yet received salary for the quarter ended 31st March last, the reason of this detention of salary being that there are no out-offices attached to this school, and that, in communications to the National Board, the

  781
  manager of this school has expressed his willingness to build these out-offices if he could obtain a suitable site, but that the inspector of the district, on 13th September last, examined the surroundings of the school without being able to point out a suitable and available site for these out-offices; and will he say if there is a rule of the National Board prohibiting the teacher whose salary is withheld from building these out-offices himself.
  MY. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners inform me that they cannot reconsider their decision in the case of this school until they receive an assurance that definite steps have been taken by the manager to provide out-offices. The inspector does not allude to the alleged difficulty of procuring a site in the report of his visit on the 13th September. The Commissioners cannot assent to any action that would give the teacher a proprietary interest in the school premises.

  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Return of the number of agrarian outrages in Ireland for the quarter ending 31st March last, showing that out of a total of 65, 37 are described as threatening notices; and if he can say whether the police make inquiry as to whether these alleged threatening letters should be described as genuine threats or the reverse.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; no case is finally recorded in these Returns until after the fullest possible investigation.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many of these cases the threatening letters are sent by the individuals themselves for obvious reasons?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  STEAM TRAWLING OFF COUNTY LOUTH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that last year the Irish Privy Council disallowed as illegal a
  782
  bye-law made by the Irish Fishery Board prohibiting steam trawling between points in county Dublin and county Louth on the ground that portions of the sea outside the territorial jurisdiction of Her late Majesty were embraced; and, seeing that last week the King's Bench upheld a conviction in county Waterford under an analogous bye-law embracing an extra territorial area, and held that the same was legally made, whether the Irish Fishery Board will now be advised to re-enact the disallowed bye-law for the protection of the county Louth fishermen.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Lord Chancellor, in announcing the advice the Committee of the Privy Council would give His Excellency in reference to the bye-law mentioned, did not state the grounds on which that advice was based. It is open to the Department of Agriculture, however, to submit a fresh bye-law if, upon consideration of the facts and the law, they consider such a course advisable, having regard to the recent decision.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the expediency of dealing with the point in his present Bill on steam trawling?
  MR. ATKINSON: The decision in King's Bench seems to cover it.

  BOYLE TOWN COMMISSIONERS—FAIRS AND MARKETS REGULATIONS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can explain why the Local Government Board have informed the Boyle Town Commissioners that they cannot make fair and market regulations for the prevention of obstruction of the streets and of the holding of pig fairs on other than the appointed days, the Boyle Town Commissioners being constituted under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854.
  MR. ATKINSON: The only explanation is that that was the conclusion to which the Local Government Board came on the law and the facts, in the case of the bye-laws submitted by them.

  REVALUATIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether

  783
  Article 37 (N) of Privy Council Order, 30th January, 1899, was drawn to apply to general revaluations of property under Sections 65 of the Local Government Act, 1898, and 34 of the Valuation Act, 1852, or only to annual revisions; and is he aware that the wider construction would enable a rate to be struck before the appeals are heard, which in cases of the general revaluation of a city must be numerous, whereas in the case of isolated revisions made annually appeals are always few.
  MR. ATKINSON: The order was intended to apply, and the Valuation Office insists does apply, to a general revaluation. In the latter case it would, no doubt, have a wider scope than in the former, but the provisions for recoupment prevent any difficulty or hardship from arising and greatly facilitates the making of that valuation.

  BALTIMORE MAILS.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the mail for Baltimore, which is carried from Cork to Skibbereen by the train leaving at 11.50 (arriving at Skibbereen at 1.30), is not delivered at Baltimore until next morning, though the train by which the letters are brought proceeds immediately to Baltimore, a distance of nine miles from Skibbereen; and whether, in view of the fact that the bulk of these letters are from England and of importance to fish buyers, he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to having an immediate delivery of the letters referred to.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Inquiry is being made on the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and the result will be communicated to him as soon as possible.

  REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE, DUBLIN —TELEGRAMS TO SEARCHERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that until recently it has been the practice of the Post Office to deliver telegrams to searchers in the Search
  784
  Room of the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, he can explain why telegraph messengers have now been instructed not to deliver messages to searchers there; and is it intended to also instruct such messengers not to deliver messages to barristers or solicitors personally at the Four Courts, Dublin.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is unable to trace any such instructions as those referred to. The hon. Member must, he thinks, have been misinformed.

  GIBRALTAR DEFENCE WORKS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will give a day after the Whitsuntide holidays for discussion of the questions relating to the works and defences of Gibraltar; and whether, in the meantime, they propose to suspend the construction of any of the works sanctioned on the western side of Gibraltar.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say that I imagine an occasion may arise when this question may be discussed on the Naval Works Loan Bill. I cannot answer the second paragraph of the question or add anything to what I said yesterday in reply to an hon. Member opposite. I then stated that the House shall have the earliest information as to any change of plan.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Naval Works Loans Bill will be introduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I cannot say.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be the business on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Supposing we do not finish the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to-day, we shall finish it on Thursday. But the first

  785
  Order of the day on Thursday will be the motion for the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays. On Friday I propose to put down first the Order for the Joint Committee on Queen Anne's Bounty. It has been on the Paper for a long time, and it is extremely inconvenient that it should hang fire any longer. The Civil List will be the second Order, and the Demise of the Crown Bill the third Order. There are also two Votes on the Army Estimates which, for financial reasons, it is very important that we should take.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Which Votes are to be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Vote 10 and the Ordnance Vote.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have a morning sitting on Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What will be the business after the Whitsuntide holidays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat that question on Thursday.

NEW BILLS.
  EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Bill to enable School Boards to establish and maintain Schools of Science and Art, Science and Art Classes, and Evening Continuation Schools out of the School Fund: ordered to be brought in by Sir John Brunner, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Channing, Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. Alfred Hutton, and Dr. Macnamara.
  EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
  "To enable School Boards to establish and maintain Schools of Science and Art, Science and Art Classes, and Evening Continuation Schools out of the School Fund;" presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 10th June, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  EDUCATION OF THE BLIND (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to amend the law in regard to the Education of the Blind in Scotland; ordered to be brought in by Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Baird, Mr. Shaw-Stewart, Lord Balcarres, and Mr. Tennant.
  EDUCATION OF THE BLIND (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law in regard to the Education of the Blind in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 11th June, and to be printed. [Bill 200].

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time"—
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the question, in order to add the words, 'this House, while ready to make adequate provision for the naval and military requirements of the Empire, is of opinion that the Financial proposals of His Majesty's Government are objectionable both with regard to taxation and debt, are calculated injuriously to affect industry and commerce, and do not exhibit that regard for economy which the alarming increase that has recently taken place in the normal expenditure of the country imperatively demands,' instead thereof."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON: Before discussing the question of the coal duty, I have only a word or two to say with reference to the tax upon sugar. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been careful to pay attention to the different qualities of sugar, and has brought to his aid a scientific instrument known as the polariscope, by means of which he is able to insure that the incidence of the duty upon this particular commodity shall be just. We do not ask in the case of the coal tax to have scientific apparatus;

  787
  applied in order to detect the different qualities of coal, but we do ask that in the imposition of the duty the instruments of justice and common sense shall be applied.
  Coming to the coal duty, the different qualities of coal ought to be and are, of course, thoroughly well-known, not only to coal-owners but to coal consumers, and I am sorry it is proposed to place a level 1s. per ton upon every class of coal, no matter from what district it comes. There appears to me in this to be a lack of consideration for the interests of colliery owners and the trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer usually selects some prosperous trade upon which to levy taxation. He is quite entitled to do that, and I for one think the coal trade has been prosperous and ought to be taxed; but, at the same time, I hold that the incidence of the taxation, whatever form it may take, should be one which is guided by a proper appreciation of the principles of justice. Now the remarks I am about to make will chiefly refer to one district, which is harder hit than any other. I mean the district of Northumberland. The popularity of the coal tax is undoubted; it is, I believe, growing in popularity, but that fact will not prevent me from expressing my opinion. The reason for the popularity is obvious. The householders of this country have been very much punished by the high prices they have had to pay for coal lately, and that is quite a sufficient reason for their present attitude. I was driving through my constituency the other day, and saw an advertisement announcing that for 5d. it was possible to buy 28 lbs. of coal. That works out at 33s. per ton. It is a monstrous price to pay for coal, especially when it is remembered that coal at the pit's mouth will not fetch one-third of that sum. Hence one cannot be surprised that the tax is popular, and appeals to those who have had to pay such high prices. But, after all, the feeling is somewhat unjust, because it is not the coalowner who has reaped all the benefit of the heavy charges. The money has gone largely to the middlemen. I have over and over again put down the price of coal at the pit mouth, and added to it every conceivable charge for freight, etc, and yet
  788
  I could not bring the total up to anything like 33s. per ton, or even 29s. There must, therefore, be a considerable amount added at some intermediate stage. If I might be allowed to suggest it, it is the coal ring in London which has benefited by these high prices, and yet the gentlemen who form this ring are not touched by the tax. However, the people with whom this tax is so popular are not aware of that fact. They simply blame the coal-owners generally, and when they hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to put a tax upon exported coal they are not aware of the fact that the coal which is exported is not the same class of coal as that which comes into London and which is used for household purposes. The coal produced in Northumberland is not household oal. It is not gas or cokeing coal. It is merely ordinary steam-producing coal which has not the smokeless property of Welsh coal. In consequence of not possessing that property it has an extremely restricted market, and when I tell the House that 80 per cent. of the coal which Northumberland produces is exported—and I know that in some collieries 93 per cent. is exported—I would urge that hon. Members should recognise that it is a most serious thing to put a tax of 1s. per ton upon it. The situation becomes still more grave when it is known that the only markets we now have left for that coal are the northern ports of Europe, where German coal comes into competition. It is the fact that there is only a margin of 2d. or 3d. per ton between the Northumberland and the Westphalian coal, which enables the English coalowners to get the contracts, and if you are going to put 1s. extra per ton upon their coal you will practically destroy that market for them. It will be found to be impossible to make the foreigner pay the 1s., and I do not see how Northumberland can pay it. Formerly Northumberland used to supply coal to the Navy, but they lost that market when the Welsh coal fields were developed, and smokeless coal was obtained from them. Northumberland has no chance against the smokeless coal, and so one by one our markets have disappeared. In the Far East we have no chance at all. In India the coalfields of Madras and Hyderabad

  789
  have cut us out entirely, and we have no export there; while if we go to the West Indies we find that we have been deprived of our original markets by America and Australia. Thus, there is nothing left to us but the northern ports of Europe, and there we are subjected to a keen and close competition with Germany. The German trade is not one that can be spoken of with disrespect. At present it represents 138,000,000 tons per annum, while our own trade throughout the United Kingdom amounts to 225,000,000 tons. The German coal-owners, therefore, are no mean antagonists in our trade. The increase of the German coal output is going on at a very great speed, and I am informed that it is at least five and a half million tons annually. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech the other day rather dismissed this question of German competition and the difficulties attending it by suggesting that the coalowners should go to the North Eastern Railway Company and ask them to reduce their rates. I see some of the North Eastern directors in the House at the present moment, and I should like to know their view of the suggestion. They have a monopoly in their district, and it is very unlikely indeed, therefore, that they would help us in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also suggested that we ought to put our coals on board vessels and send them to the south. But he forgot that our coal is not a household coal, and therefore that particular remedy would not be efficacious. We do, of course, send some of our coal south, but it must be remembered that there are no large manufacturing centres near the southern ports, and therefore there is practically no market there for our coals.
  I now come to the effect which the tax will have in favour of the German coalowners. It is a well-known fact, not only in Northumberland but elsewhere, that the full working of the collieries produces the lowest cost; for instance, we get the minimum cost when we are working eleven days in the fortnight. If we work ten days the cost goes up at least 6d. per ton; if we only work nine days it goes up a shilling; while for eight days the increase, as compared with full time, is 1s. 6d. In the case
  790
  of Germany exactly the reverse occurs, for directly the collieries there are worked at full time—which they are not just now—the cost will go down 1s. 6d. per ton. It has always been my view that the profit made by the reduction of cost is ten times more valuable than that obtained by fluctuations in the market, and we are giving that to the Germans. They are throwing up their hats with joy at this proposal, because, they recognise that the export duty will curtail the quantity that we send out, and therefore increase our cost of production; in fact, what is a loss in our case will be a profit to them, and this is quite independent of any advance in price they get from being able to charge the 1s. duty to their home consumers. It has been suggested that owners might send their coal to other markets by railway. But allow me to tell the House that in Northumberland half of the colliery owners are absolutely independent of the railway company. Many of them have their own railways, and enormous sums of money have been expended in constructing lines and shipping stages. Is all this outlay of capital to be thrust on one side on account of a capricious change of the nature proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I hope the House will see that it is a most unreasonable proposal, and that it would have been, at all events, less unsound to have put a tax upon some imported goods that we ourselves manufacture. I am not a Protectionist, but I say that this duty breaks through one of the great canons of Free Trade, and, if you once do that, there is nothing to prevent the creation of tariffs which will, no doubt, bring revenue to the country, although they may at the same time increase the cost to those who buy the articles in this country.
  I wish to allude to a Return of statistics relating to coal mining, moved for by the President of the Board of Trade, and published last Saturday. I think it shows most conclusively that the contention that the coal trade is as a rule a poor trade, and only good in times of inflation, is fully borne out. I do not intend to trouble the House with many figures, but those figures are given in such a form that it is easy for the House to follow them. I

  791
  will ask them to look at the table on page 4, which gives the average quantity of coal raised per annum between 1890 and 1899 as 191 million tons. The average price per ton at the pit mouth during the same period was 6s. 10·3d., and that amount is divided under the heads of, first, wages to miners, and, second, expenses other than wages including coal owners' profits. The computed amount under the latter head is 19½ million pounds sterling, which means that after the wages are paid there is just 2s. per ton left for paying the other expenses and for profits, if there are any. A great many things have to be paid out of this. We have school board rates and taxes, mineral rents, materials, and way leave charges, damage to land, and other things which have to be compressed into that 2s. In Northumberland and Durham materials alone cost 8d. to 10d. per ton: rents, 5d. to 7d. per ton; colliery consumption of coal, 3½d. per ton; rates and taxes, 1½d. per ton. These are all included in the 2s. per ton. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where are the large profits left? There are no doubt some coal owners who have made a profit all through those ten years, but many have lost. It only shows that this question must be investigated before legislation of this kind is put forward. I only give those figures from the Home Office statistics to show that the estimates upon which this tax is based are absolutely fallacious. Another way in which we can get at the profits on coal is from a statement prepared by Mr. J. Bell Simpson (an eminent Northumbrian engineer) for the fourteen years ending March, 1899. In that Return, taken from the Inland Revenue Returns, he gives the total average gross profit at over £9,000,000; of that the royalties were £4,600,000. So far as royalties are concerned, there is no Return except 1899, when a Commission was appointed which reported and gave the royalty rents for that year 5·7d. per ton, and if we deduct the amount of the royalties at this rate from the coalowners' profits we find that the royalty owners receive more than the coal owners. The amount which is made by the coal owners runs out at 5·6d. per ton. These different
  792
  statements show that the amount of the earnings in coal mining over a term of years are very small, and when such a tax as this is to be imposed all these matters ought to be thoroughly considered. The coal owners are glad to admit that they have had a good year, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will devise an equitable plan of making a charge upon what they have earned they will not grumble, but they do grumble at the selection of particular districts for punishment. I was asked the other day to present to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a resolution which had been passed by the Mining Institute of Great Britain, asking that a small charge should be put upon all coal raised at the pit to cover the full amount he expected to raise from the export duty, and the reply I received from the right hon. Gentleman I do not consider was entirely discouraging. He pointed out that the proposal could not be entertainad until it was proved to be unanimous from all localities. It is, no doubt, difficult to get absolute unanimity, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not expect it, for when coal owners not affected by this tax are asked to bear a portion of this burden many of them will probably be selfish. Any small view of the case such as that should have no consideration whatever in this House. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made up his mind, I hope that this duty will not stop where it is, but that next year it will extend to the whole coal trade. I urge the respectful request that there should be a proper inquiry into this question before legislation takes place, so that there might be some kind of equality and justice in the way the tax is levied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has seemed to be rather obdurate on this matter, but at the same time we know that he can take as broad a view as anyone of these things; and we believe that when the Bill gets into Committee this question will have his consideration. I trust he will then find some way out of the difficulty, and that he will bring forward proposals by which there shall be laid upon the coal trade a tax which will not press with so much inequality and injustice upon particular districts of the country.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I wish to state the grounds upon which I intend to support the Amendment, especially as there has been a good deal of criticism which has arisen, I think, from misunderstanding. If the Amendment meant an approval of the policy which led to this war, I certainly should not vote for it. If the Amendment was an attempt to prevent the legitimate discussion of the issues raised by the war, I should think it a most unworthy device, and should vote against it. I do not intend to enter upon the question, but my view with regard to the policy which led to the war is the same as it always has been. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the issue was whether Boer or Briton was to be supreme in South Africa. I believe it is a complete delusion to suppose that any such issue was at stake until the war itself raised it. Whether I am right or wrong in thinking that that policy is the greatest blunder this country has made during the last century and a quarter, since the loss of the American colonies, I am quite satisfied that there was no intention on the part of my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton to exclude any legitimate discussion which might arise in respect of that subject. To begin with, no one would be so foolish as to imagine that, whatever differences may exist on this side of the House—which appear to excite so much mirth among hon. Gentlemen opposite—they are to be composed by cunningly constructed sentences. I hope those differences will not be of long duration, but this I will undertake to say—that when they are brought to an end it will be by toleration, mutual respect, and above all, plain and explicit expression of opinion among the Gentlemen sitting together on this side of the House.
  I understand the real object of the Amendment to be to condemn the enormous growth of our normal expenditure, quite apart from that which is due to the actual outlay on the war. That is a most legitimate and useful theme of discussion, and we ought not to allow the plain fact of this enormous growth to be concealed by reason of the existence of a state of war. The rise in expenditure, we have been told, has been 30 per cent. or more during the past
  794
  six years; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be it noted, holds out no hope of a reduction. Throughout his speech he said nothing about any prospect of a reduction. He is too candid a financier; he knows perfectly well that the probability is not a reduction but an increase. He has warned us against it repeatedly; he now sees it coming upon him. I do not doubt that some saving might be effected by close examination of details, such as, unfortunately, this House is not well able at present to make. I have often thought that if a strong Committee, similar to that which used to be appointed every twenty years in regard to Indian finance, were appointed to consider the finance of this country, possibly something might be done in the way of the reduction of expenditure, or the promotion of economy. Whether that be so or not, I am sure that small parings here and there will not affect the great volume of taxation in this country, and it would be a great pity if we deluded ourselves with the idea that any mere methods of investigation or inquiry could achieve the object we have in view. The great bulk is what we have to deal with, and the great bulk of the increase is in regard to the Army and the Navy. I am well aware that it pleases some hon. Gentlemen—I think they do it more out of heedlessness or party spirit than out of any belief that it is true—to be constantly suggesting that we—especially the miserable individuals who hold my opinions about the war—are "Little Englanders," that we wish to restrict the power and the greatness of our country, and that we are prepared to give up in every direction British interests and the British Empire. I shall not condescend to answer any suggestions of that kind. I believe that all parties in the House really desire to maintain the greatness of this country, and that they all recognise that it is impossible to do that without also maintaining the dependencies, the colonies, and what is generally called the Empire attaching to this country. What we differ about are the means and methods. I believe the methods which have been adopted for some time are calculated to diminish the British Empire, to weaken it, and to expose it to great danger when the time of tria comes. That is all we differ about, and

  795
  my purpose now in referring to this military increase is merely in a few words to point out what I believe to be the true reason that we have arrived at the financial situation in which we now find ourselves. The military increase has not been gradual or by slow steps. Within the last six years the military expenditure has gone up from £18,500,000 to £30,000,000. Not only so, but for the year or two following 1896 there was no appreciable increase at all; while in the year ending 31st March, 1900, if I remember rightly, the expenditure stood at £20,500,000, and now it is almost £30,000,000. The increased expenditure, therefore, has been almost entirely within the last three or four years, and mainly within the last two years. That is quite remarkable.
  What are the reasons for the great increase during the last six years? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that there were four or five Great Powers now, whereas there was only one before, from whom we need apprehend any danger. Is that new within the last six years? There has been no Great Power which has come into existence within that period. The United States has taken a more prominent position of late, but apart from that no Great Power has taken up such a formidable position as would require this enormous military expenditure, any more than it was required six years ago—or even ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the reasons for this increased expenditure pointed to the extended frontier that we have to defend. He referred to India. Well, India is no new thing. The North-West frontier of India is no new thing; we have had to provide for that for many years. India is a country with an enormous population of her own, and I am satisfied, although we must not neglect reasonable precautions, that one of the best safeguards we can have for India is to govern the people justly and well, as I believe we are trying to do, thereby securing their contentment and allegiance. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to Canada. That also is a very old story. None of the recent increase of military expenditure can be attributed to Canada, and the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest such a thing. If—which God forbid—there should ever be a conflict
  796
  between Canada and the United States, the 10,000 or 20,000 or more Regular troops which we have in that country would not make the smallest difference in the issue. That issue would depend upon very different considerations. But I trust we may practically exclude such a calamity from the range of possibility. The only other frontier to which the right hon. Gentleman adverted was that of Uganda. Uganda is inaccessible. I feel that I am treading on delicate ground in saying anything about Uganda, but I may say I have never been in the least friendly to the original occupation of that territory. But whether that be a correct view or not, it is very difficult to think that any great portion of the increased military expenditure now proposed is required on account of Uganda. It is not the old condition of things to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred. It is not the old conditions which caused this great increase in the expenditure, but it is the new state of things created within the last five or six years, and especially within the last two years. It is the new spirit that is abroad throughout this country, which was sedulously fostered and cultivated by a quarrelsome and aggressive disposition. It was this spirit which nearly led us into a war with Prance, and which has unhappily ended in the most serious war we have been embarked upon for the last hundred years. That I believe to be the case. I do not say that hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to quarrel, but they use language of a provocative character. They decline arbitration, for example, as they did with the United States over Venezuela, although I am bound to say that Lord Salisbury nobly redeemed his original mistake. The Government and Gentlemen opposite carry on a policy of a provocative character. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] There is nothing unparliamentary or offensive in that expression, and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that it is perfectly legitimate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It is a provocative expression.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Then let me express my meaning by simply saying

  797
  that there has been a difference in the manner in which we have conducted our foreign relations within the last four or five years, and it has not been a change in the direction of a conciliatory or propitiatory demeanour. Another reason for this great expenditure is this: When this war is ended, as I trust it soon may be, it is almost certain that a situation will have been created full of new danger and full of a new military danger. That is almost certain to be the case. It is also necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for that danger. I deplore as much as any man this expenditure, and regret more the causes which have led to this expenditure; and, unless there is a less aggressive attitude adopted towards other nations, I am afraid that this is not the last war you will enter upon, nor will this be the last increase in our military armaments for which we shall have to provide. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to analyse this question he would have to say that the spirit which has been created abroad in foreign countries is far less favourable to this country than it was, and they are more disposed to find fault and be embroiled with us. The right hon. Gentleman also contemplates a great increase of military expenditure arising after the settlement of the war. I regret this expenditure exceedingly. I cannot see why great additional armaments have become necessary by reason of this war. It is not the old conditions with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal which are responsible for this increase of taxation and expenditure, but it is the new conditions, for which, I believe, the Government themselves are responsible; and this state of things will be still more aggravated unless the Government alter their methods and their tone.
  THE PEESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): I sat here listening to this debate during the greater part of last evening, and up to the present moment this evening every speech I heard from the other side has confirmed me in the opinion that was so adequately expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford, that this Amendment and
  798
  the debate upon it is a farce and a sham. We have really had no criticism in this debate upon the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is introducing increased taxes and originating two new ones, and the right hon. Gentleman who initiated this discussion had nothing to say against the war, nothing to say against the expenditure for it, nothing whatever to say against the principle of borrowing for it, nothing to say against the income tax or the sugar duty, and very little against the coal duty. Practically every speech made last night, instead of dealing with the new taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went back to the old subject of grants in aid of local taxation, which, after all, is not the question we are discussing. This is a subject which the right hon. Gentlemen themselves had an opportunity of dealing with from 1892 to 1895, but they never touched it, and I venture to say that if they were in office to-morrow they would not touch it, because they would lose the support of all the agricultural Members who sit behind them if they did. I confess that I thought, however, that the hon. Member for Waterford was a little hard in other respects upon the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, whether he differs from his party or not, is always honest, frank, and straightforward, and that was the essential character of his speech last night, and of that portion of the Amendment for which I take it he is responsible. But that cannot be said of the preamble to the Amendment. I cannot conceive why any such platitude as that which forms the first part of this Amendment was introduced at all. It is not necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to proclaim to the House and to the country that he is prepared in a certain way to defend the Empire. The preamble must have been introduced on behalf of another section of the party in search of a character, of a section of the party who no doubt would like to catch the patriotic breeze now blowing, and yet do not wish to be committed by anything it says. For such the word "adequate" has been introduced into this Amendment, and this "fly in the amber" betrays its origin. I venture to say it has been

  799
  introduced by no less a Member than the Leader of the Opposition. It is just one of some half a dozen words, which mean nothing at all, that form part of the stock-in-trade of the embarrassed politician, and is valuable because it has no fixed meaning. The lady in the circus ambles round on her monotonous course until she finally lands in the arms of the clown, and the right hon. Gentleman, after riding opposite policies abreast, has fallen into the hands of the Daily News; but the Daily News is far from being in a comic mood, it is in a very serious mood indeed. That paper, recently re-edited and renovated to express the opinions of the united Liberal party, declared that this was not an honest Amendment, but that the honest party Amendment was represented by the notice given by the hon. Member for South Molton—
  "That this House is of opinion that if the foreign policy of the country is conducted with skill and judgment our present large and increasing armaments are quite unnecessary and the taxation which they involve perfectly unjustifiabla"
  I do not wish to intervene in these party squabbles, which apparently do not represent the feeling of the party opposite, although that is the feeling of the Daily News. Surely the country, upon an occasion like the present, has some right to have an expression of opinion from the other side upon a resolution of this kind. Upon a vote of want of confidence in the Government, surely the ordinary man and honest artisan has some right to have a full, straightforward, and candid expression of opinion on the question at issue from the Opposition. That is our defence, for we consider the condition of our Army and Navy are more important than any other subject.
  But this is not all. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last dealt very largely with the question of the war, but that is not the question at issue to-day. The question of the policy of the war has been placed before the country, and the country has given a decided verdict upon the subject. What we have to discuss to-day is the question of the growth of our normal expenditure. That growth, no doubt, is very considerable, but would it decrease if the party opposite came into power? Is this a party ques-
  800
  tion at all, or is it due to the sheer necessities of the nation? I hope that whatever we do in this discussion we shall stick to facts. Let us stick to the facts, and not go wandering into dreamland, where I think we have been wandering too long. What is the actual position of this country at the present moment? Great nations have not yet turned their swords into ploughshares. We are no longer the only workshop, the only warehouse, and the only transport managers in the world. The world shows no great desire to be our customers, and our best customers are our colonies. Unlike twenty years ago, we live to-day amid great nations armed to the teeth, and most of our trouble is in connection with trade markets—those very things upon which our national life depends. Trade is like Christianity itself. It may mean "not peace but the sword." When we are told that we are to trust to diplomacy, then I say that we may reasonably ask ourselves the question, Are we to depend for our safety in the future on the benevolence of foreign nations, just as Cobden depended on the goodwill of those nations for the universal establishment of free trade? We compete in peace, and, it may be, in war, with nations with a very large and wide population. Surely it is our duty for that purpose to make the best use of every unit in our population, and this we aim to do by means of national education and perfecting the defences of the country. A very large proportion of this expenditure has been spent on education. Does anyone grudge that expenditure? Is it not likely that it is an expenditure which has not reached its limit, and which must increase if we are to do justice to our policy? Could there be any objects for the nation of more pressing importance than education and self-defence? When we go to the country speaking of this enormous expenditure it would be well to add, for the benefit of the people to whom we speak, something with respect to the purposes to which it is devoted. What does self-defence mean now? The hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs seemed to say that all our troubles were due to the provocative spirit of our diplomacy. Well, let us get away from theories of that kind, and look at what are the sober

  801
  facts at the present moment. Even our territorial frontiers have increased. No doubt, as he said, they are the same as they were in India and Canada, but are they the same all over Africa? Are they the same in South Africa, in East Africa, and in Egypt? Even in West Africa twenty years ago very little consideration was given to our colonists there. Our interests in West Africa have very largely indeed developed, and so have our interests in other countries where we have colonies, and where we have land frontiers which we are bound to protect. But there is another consideration. It is not merely that we have larger frontiers, but there were times when we did not take the trouble to protect those frontiers as we should have done. The country has woke up to the necessity of self-defence. It realises that it cannot any longer go on in the happy-go-lucky system to which it trusted twenty years ago. It is a fact, therefore, that we have not only got larger frontiers to protect, but the country has determined, as it never did twenty or thirty years ago, that these frontiers shall be adequately protected. Should we grudge this money spent on self-defence—we who are still the most lightly taxed nation in the world? Though our expenditure has grown great as it is, it has grown to nothing like the same extent as that of foreign nations. Between 1826 and 1869 our taxation has increased only 20 per cent.; that of France has increased 78 per cent.; and that of Prussia 70 per cent. Even on the top of this enormous increase of expenditure France has increased its expenditure from £84,000,000 to £141,000,000 between 1870 and 1897. Germany has doubled its expenditure; and Austria has nearly doubled its expenditure. The expenditure of Russia has advanced from £74,000,000 to £150,000,000; and Italy has increased from £44,000,000 to £70,000,000. Our National Debt is only £15 18s. 7d. per head, while that of Italy is £16 17s., and that of France is no less than £28 2s.
  The right hon. Gentleman introduced in his Amendment a phrase about which I hoped he would have something to say in his speech, and that was the phrase with regard to economy. I am one of those who have always advocated
  802
  economy in this House, and I think that the worst things ever done, perhaps, for the real cause of economy were those violent retrenchments of expenditure which took place under Mr. Gladstone's Governments. I believe they have been utterly discredited. What I believe to be more true economy is looking that for every £1 and every £100 spent you have proper regard for efficiency. What the people of this country want at the present moment is a strong Army and Navy, and what they do insist upon is the getting of full value for their money. That is really the subject we have to face. We are told that even in our English methods of procedure in trade we are not so businesslike as we might be. We are reading constantly in the papers, in the reports of consuls, that English manufacturers fall behind their foreign competitors in their business methods. I am afraid that what is true of the private business of the nation may also, to a great extent, be true of the public service. Although I wish that the discussions on the Estimates in this House were more calculated to reduce our expenditure than they are, I am afraid, as a matter of fact, the interest this House takes in the Estimates when they are discussed it is not of such a nature as to bring about any great reduction. On the contrary, the discussions which take place, as a rule, are in the direction of increasing expenditure, and I am afraid even that guardian the Treasury, which is said to keep so close a watch on our expenditure, does not provide the adequate control it ought to do over that expenditure. The Treasury, under the present system, undoubtedly has the power to prevent any great increase of expenditure, but it has not the knowledge to go into all the details of every Department, and it has not the power if a Department is exceeding its own expenditure to cut that expenditure down. Therefore I believe if this expenditure goes on increasing as it has done we shall undoubtedly have to get a more effective control than at present over the details of that expenditure. But, after all, it is not only the expenditure of money; it is the way in which we use our men. I am bound to say that, however excellent as I believe the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary

  803
  of State for War is, what pleased me more than all his scheme of reform were the words in which he spoke of administration, and stated that in the Army in future merit should have its place, and that backstairs influence should disappear. One misplaced man in high position may lead to an enormous waste of money, and I believe that my right hon. friend in inaugurating that reform in the Army is doing a great service. I take the question of contracts. Contracts for the public services should be dealt with on more businesslike principles. As an instance of what may be done I may mention the fact that when sitting in this House one day with the Paper in my hand on which the questions were printed, I found that the paper supplied to the Stationery Office was formerly made in the United States, and was decidedly inferior to what is now obtained. The change was brought about by an arrangement by which, instead of having the contracts fulfilled by wholesale stationers, they were thrown open to manufacturers only, and thus we got English paper and at the same time saved £60,000 a year by that transaction alone. I believe that principle could be applied to a great many of our Departments.
  What, Sir, are the two great merits of the Finance Bill? In the first place that it recognises that taxation and representation should go together. The separation between the two has been too great and has lasted too long. Our system of taxation is a relic of the time when the working classes had not got votes, and it is a dangerous state of things when there are classes in this country who have an enormous voting power but who do not bear a corresponding burden in relation to the taxation of the country. While the Government are anxious to widen the basis of taxation, the party opposite, so far as I understand their principles, are anxious to make the basis even narrower than it is. Indirect taxation is levied upon very few articles at present, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to increase the number of these articles by levying a tax upon sugar, the first opponent he met with was the Leader of the Opposition, who said, "That is contrary to our doctrine of a free breakfast table." But why
  804
  a free breakfast table? Why not a free dinner table, and a free supper table? [Hear, hear.] Yes; but we know why a free breakfast table is to be preferred to a free dinner table or a free supper table. It is because the only person who would benefit by the free breakfast table is the teetotaller. I have never been able to see why teetotallers should be especially exempted from taxation. I believe the working classes are not quite in harmony with those who make these: attacks on indirect taxation—I believe they regard it rather as an insult. The working classes are perfectly willing to take their share in the taxation of the country. They are as proud of the Empire as the richest man is, and they have as large a share in the control of it as the richest man has. [Opposition cries of "Oh."] Oh! yes, they have. The man in the humblest cottage has as large a share in the control of the Empire as the man living in the most highlyrated mansion. Besides that, I venture to say that there are no men like the working man, or the manufacturer, if you like, and his employees, who have so much interest in taxation and are so interested in keeping the markets open to their trades—these markets being to them the very bread of life. We are told that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to steady the policy of the Government, and are anxious that we should not engage in war except under the direst necessity. What would steady the policy of this country more, and make it more definite and unchanging, than the application of the principle which Mill applied to direct taxation in the old days, when direct taxation was borne by those who had the main influence in the country? He said, "You ought to levy direct taxation, because it makes; taxation odious, and therefore prevents any great increase in the taxation of the country." If we want to prevent the taxation of this country from growing, and to steady the policy of this country, we ought to impose taxation upon those who have a real voice in the Government; of the country, and that can be done by means of indirect taxation.
  The main attack on the Finance Bill has been the attack which has been directed to the coal duty. My hon. friend behind me, the hon. Member for East St.

  805
  Pancras, made a most interesting and to me a most informing speech, but in regard to this question of the coal duty we might very well be on our guard and see from whom the cry really comes. In the first place, we have had a great wail from the colliers, but the colliers are in a very peculiar position in regard to this industry, because they were within a very narrow margin of upsetting the whole trade and industry of this country by a strike, and I believe myself that a great deal of the opposition which came from the colliers was a political opposition.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Not in the least.
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Gentleman says "Not in the least," but I venture to say that there are two reasons that fully justify me in taking that position. For instance, this tax will not affect the Midland colliers directly or indirectly, and yet they voted against it as vigorously as anybody.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: It will indirectly.
  MR. HANBURY: Indirectly, but not so much, at any rate, as to cause such immense emotion in the breasts of the Midland colliers. We have to recognise the fact that colliers as a rule belong to one political party. To a great extent Lancashire is an exception, but Lancashire is a wise county in many other respects. Other colliers, unfortunately, have lagged behind. They have not followed their colleagues under the banner of Unionism, but still lag behind under the banner of Little Englanders, of which hon. Gentlemen seem so very proud. That is very easily explained. Other industries have felt keenly the fight of competition. They have had to battle with foreign competition to an extent which the colliers never had. The colliers have had their home markets to depend upon, or their foreign markets, where their prices practically protected them against any competition whatever; and they are the only class of workmen in this country who have not felt the necessity for foreign markets, and have not supported vigorously the policy of a Government who said these markets are to be maintained.
  MR. M'KENNA: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the builders, and printers, and other domestic trades?
  MR. HANBURY: I come to the speech of my hon. friend, who laid great stress on the fact that Northumberland coal was cheap coal; but, after all, the cheapness of the coal is not the index to the profit made upon it. The profit depends not so much upon the price as upon the cost of getting the coal. I venture to say that the difference between the cost of getting Northumberland coal and the selling price of that coal is almost as considerable as it is in Wales. We know that in Wales the price of coal is largely governed by the cost of getting the coal, which is enormous, owing to the depth and the quality of the seams which are-worked. The hon. Gentleman also stated that nearly the whole of the Northumberland coal was exported abroad. That assumption is based on inaccurate figures. [Cries of "No."] He said 93 per cent.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: In one colliery 93 per cent.
  MR. HANBURY: The figures are made up by taking into consideration nearly the whole of the coal that is shipped from the Tyne as if it were Northumberland coal. That is not the fact; a very large proportion of that coal came from Durham, and therefore ought not to enter into the calculation at all. There is another point. I read yesterday in The Times a very interesting letter from a gentleman who wrote from Bremen, and signed himself "Englander." It is so important and so interesting, and the facts he gives are so strong that I venture to put them to the House. He says—
  "A day or two ago I had a conversation with a merchant here who imports about 800 tons of English coal every week. He informed me that he has no fear whatever of losing any trade by increasing his prices 1s., or even 2s., per ton, although during the panic caused by the first announcement of the impost some orders were given to the Westphalia collieries which would in the ordinary course have fallen to the importers of English coal. I then made some inquiries as to the comparative prices of English and German coal, and was much surprised to learn that, on an average for the whole year, English coal is considerably cheaper in the ports of Hamburg

  807
  and Bremen than any other. The chief cause of this is the gross indifference to their own interests displayed by British exporters. They invariably base their prices for export on the prices current in England, which are almost always lower than here. My informant re-Sated several instances showing the folly of this system which have occurred in his own business; at one period recently the Westphalia Syndicate of Coalowners were demanding 200 marks where the British asked only 170 marks. He also told me with some amusement that the British coal-shippers relied solely on the German buyers for their information of the state of the markets in Germany, whereas the buyers here keep themselves cognisant of all movements of prices in England by subscribing to half a dozen English newspapers. The nature of the information supplied to the British seller by his German buyer may be readily guessed—the news of any slight fall is wired at once, and a discreet silence is maintained as to the rises."
  There is only one other point which I should like to touch upon in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the question of the loan. Of course less loan means more taxation, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants more taxation it is incumbent upon him to say what kind of taxation it should be. He has not hesitated to give his opinion in regard to the loan. He says that the loan ought not to have been as large as it is. Surely, if he can give his, opinion as to the loan he ought to give us the benefit of his advice on what the taxation should be. Why should this generation bear the whole burden and brunt of this war in the next two or three years? We are at this moment paying the debt incurred for the wars of those who went before us. We are not only bearing our own sins, but specially the sins of those who went before us; we had to bear the cost of Majuba, and of the ignominious retreat then imposed upon us. That was proved by one of the letters, written by a Boer in England, which have appeared in The Times. [Nationalist cries of "P.S."]
  MR. DILLON: He was not a Boer at all.
  MR. HANBUEY: He was a Boer who, at any rate, knew what he was writing about, and he had the strongest anti-English sentiment.
  MR. DILLON: It was not a Boer. It was one of the forgers in The Times office.
  MR. HANBURY: I do not know how the hon. Member knows that. If the hon. Member can tell me the writer's name I would be obliged.
  MR. DILLON: Nobody knows his name. I judge from the past history of The Times office.
  MR. HANBTJRY: The letters betray the hand of a man who knew the whole history of the Boers, who expressed their opinion, and was entitled to be heard. What is his opinion on the subject of how this war was brought about? He says—
  "All nations thought you English were dead; but, unfortunately for us, you were only dead drunk, drugged by the fatal folly of your disarmament craze and love of luxury, and the war has, as yet, only very partially aroused you. I cannot blind myself to the fact, however, that new life has been breathed into the dead bones in the valleys in Great Britain, and that your people are gaining strength and spirit every day, while our men are degenerating into murderous bandits and ruining our land, regardless of the fate of our women and children, who are now depending upon the generosity of the British for their food and clothing, and their very lives."
  That is the kind of thing for which we are paying now. It was the peace after Majuba Hill and our loss of prestige that has brought about this war.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the present Colonial Secretary in this House defended with the greatest enthusiasm the making of peace after Majuba?
  MR. HANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman did defend it, then he has paid dearly for it, and we are paying for it at the present moment. But, again, there is another difference between this war and the Crimean War. This war will bring us a permanent investment in South Africa. We shall have, at any rate, something tangible to produce as a result of this war, and there can be no doubt whatever that, although we may not get from the Transvaal so large a recovery as we once anticipated, we may confidently look forward to the fact that a large portion of this loan will ultimately be repaid by the Transvaal itself. But after all, what will we gain by this war? We will gain much more than the mere repayment of any part of the cost of the

  809
  war; we will gain much more than the permanent investment of having added two colonies in South Africa to our Empire. We will gain the increase in the public spirit of this country which has been called forth by this war, and which will last for many and many a generation to come. The spirit of this country has been aroused, and not only that, but the spirit of our colonies also. The price paid for this war has produced a feeling of sympathy between the various branches of the English-speaking race that no other war or cause could have produced, and even if a portion of this loan does fall on future generations great results have been gained, and the loan itself would be a small price to pay for so great a blessing.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I was one of those who listened yesterday with considerable interest to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Exeter. He took a very different view of the position of things to that taken by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The hon. Member, as a new Member, looking over our expenditure, was astounded at its magnitude, and he devoted the greater part of his speech to what he deemed might be the means of reducing our expenditure in future. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made, to my mind, one of the most hopeless speeches I have heard from the other side during this debate. The right hon. Gentleman gloried in this expenditure, and looked in a very superficial way at its origin and at its effect. I have always thought that the origin of this war, the manner in which it has been conducted, and the effect it will have in the future are questions which ought to come into a debate of their own, and which are hardly apposite or proper to be raised in the debate on the motion of my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton. What I desire to do is to take that portion of my right hon. friend's motion which refers to the manner in which the Government propose to deal with one specific trade. The hon. Member for East St. Pancras has already made a very practical and excellent speech on this subject, but what I want to do is not to take up the question
  810
  of the coal-owners, but to show how unfair the incidence of this tax is, and how little the Chancellor of the Exchequer-will get from the coal tax as compared with the damage he will do to the general trade of the country and to the various, industries which are directly and indirectly connected with the coal trade.
  This is not a new subject. In 1848 I was partly in command of collieries, and in 1873 I had the honour of sitting on a Committee on this subject after a large boom in the coal trade—a larger boom than that recently experienced. Out of the seventeen members of that Committee only three are now left—my right hon. friend the Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire, the Earl of Ravensworth, and myself. We sat, I believe, for three months, and went very carefully into many of the questions raised during the last few weeks and came, I believe unanimously, to the conclusion that it would be injurious to the best interests of this country as a trading country to tax the export of coal. It is rather curious to see the evidence that was given before the Committee. My late friend who for so many years sat in this House; Sir George Elliott, a man of great natural ability, and a large coal-owner of what might perhaps be called the speculative type, in Durham and Wales, declared that the average profit he had made had not exceeded 8d. per ton. I was a witness, and I took very much the same view as the hon. Member for East St. Pancras does now. I said I did not think from my experience of the coal trade that it had ever made more than 5 per cent. over an average of years, and I was speaking at a time when a greater boom than the late boom had just passed. I also stated, and it is my opinion still, that as a rule, coal-owners did not get in the long run as much profit as they paid the landlords in the shape of rent. This evidence agreed with the figures given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the chairman of the Northumberland Coal Trade Association, Mr. Eamb, who said that after carefully going through the figures of the coal' trade in Northumberland he found the average profit was from 7d. to 9d. per ton. Another commission which sat a few years previously to 1873 stated rather-curiously that the discovery off coal in

  811
  China, Japan, India, Australia, and America would gradually have the effect of limiting the distance to which the export of English coal could attain. There can be no manner of doubt that at this moment the large quantity of coal produced in Germany and Belgium does materially place a limit to the extent to which our coal can leave our shores. In "Tooke on Prices" it is stated that a deficit of one-tenth raises the common market three-tenths and that a deficit of two-tenths raises the common market eight-tenths. The markets to which we send our coal are comparatively few. Out of the 44,000,000 tons of coal exported in 1900 Cardiff and Wales sent 18,000,000, the Newcastle district 13,000,000, the Hull and Yorkshire district 4,000,000, and Scotland about 6,000,000. Therefore, this tax, which is not a war tax, but a tax which is to last, falls upon the industry of those comparatively few districts which happen to have steam and export coal of various descriptions in them. The Baltic, including Russia, took 18,000,000 tons of our coal, and France and European ports 21,000,000 tons. One point has not been mentioned in this House, and that is the large amount of bunker coal which is worked in order to get 44,000,000 tons exported. The bunker coal amounts to about 12,000,000 tons per annum, and therefore 56,000,000 tons, or a fourth of the whole quantity of coal raised in the United Kingdom, is concerned in this question. The disturbance in such a quantity must cause a very great disturbance in the trade of the country.
  Now, my hon. friend the Member for East St. Pancras called attention to the different ratios in which the different parts of England will be affected by the manner in which this tax is to be put on. Northumberland and Durham raise 46,000,000 tons of coal. Thirty-one per cent. of that is exported, but Northumberland when taken alone exports eighty per cent. of its output. That shows how unfairly this tax will fall on different districts. The district I am personally interested in is not what is generally known as a coal-exporting district; it is a coking district. Therefore this permanent rise would be paid by north of England to the extent
  812
  of £678,000, and by Wales and Cardiff £922,000. So that two comparatively small sections of the country will have to bear the burden of this proposed tax. We have not heard yet what are to be the allowances during the current year on the coal under contract. The best figures I can find show that the right hon. Gentleman will lose a quarter of this revenue for the current year, and that all this disturbance will be caused to the trade for £1,500,000, paid to the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot expect that so large an amount of coal will be exported with this duty of 1s. per ton as when there was no duty. The right hon. Gentleman will lose, as I have said, probably a quarter of a million, or £500,000 below his calculation of revenue; but if he is going to lose one-fourth of the export coal trade of this country, what is he going to lose by the disturbance to other trades? I think he will lose £500,000 in value of exported coal. He will lose for the workmen £2,500,000 in wages, He will lose for the landlord about £250,000, to whom he looked for income tax; he will lose to the farmers, from whom we buy our horse corn, £47,000; but, worse than all, he will send 33,000 men out of employment, unless other work is found for them, and they will go back upon the labour market, reducing wages, and that will reduce the men's power to purchase farm produce which they are now able to do. It has been said that the foreigners are going to pay this tax, but you cannot get it out of them. The Times newspaper has over and over again declared that it is going to be paid by the rich coal owner. But I say that the coal owner will not pay it. You may get it out of the Durham men, or the Yorkshire men, but not out of the Scotchmen. It is not a usual charge against the coalowner that he sells abroad at 1s. per ton less than the market price of the day. This tax will also affect the shipping interest, because coal forms a great proportion of the out cargoes, and the ships bring back raw material for English manufacture. There is the "long trade" from Hull and the "short trade" to Dutch and Belgian ports.

  813
  And here we come into direct competition for French and German coal. If the export of coal is stopped the shipper cannot afford to take anything he can get for other goods, the earnings of each voyage must be taken as a whole. His voyages will cease to be profitable when coal no longer forms part of his cargo, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduces to any extent the seagoing trade, he will be doing an irreparable damage to the whole of the country. All these industries are going to be damaged—I will not say ruined—but certainly the process of the right hon. Gentleman is essentially to damage all these industries. And all this is to be done for the sake of a revenue of about £1,500,000. Lord Londonderry is interested in a company at Seaham which is spending £600,000, in new docks. The North Eastern Railway is spending £250,000 on a new east coast line. They are also spending many thousands of pounds in shipping facilities at Newcastle, Middlesborough, and Hartlepool, and there are now three large companies sinking shafts along the East Coast, and these have enormous fields of coal going underneath the German Ocean. It is said, "Oh, that is railway property!" But what is railway property, and who are railway investors? Railway investors are principally not the rich, but the middle class men; they are the little investors. I have periodically taken out of the North Eastern shareholders' register the average holdings. Of course, there are large investors, such as bankers, financiers, and so forth, but the average of our ordinary holding, including these, is under £900 per head. That shows that you cannot trifle with this industry without probably depriving these people of some of their hard-earned savings. With regard to the question of exhaustion, first of all I would say that you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want the tax you must work the coal. Either you must carry on the coal trade or you must hold specifically and practically the doctrine of exhaustion. Are you going to provide for that? That surely means the buying up by the State of the unexhausted royalties in order to hold them as a savings bank
  814
  for the future. You cannot do that when you are borrowing money or when one only of your wars is costing you £200,000,000. You might do it otherwise, but it is a doctrine which the Committee of which I have spoken put on one side. The old principle is that 1s. a ton to-day would be worth 2s. per ton fourteen years hence. You will have to work your coal when you can get it. There is one point more that I should like to mention, and that is the relative position of our exports and imports. If we knock on the head this most important exporting trade, which takes out our goods, or do anything to damage it, we do something to increase the discrepancy which exists between our imports and exports—a discrepancy which is at present larger than ever before.
  I do not wish to detain the House, and would therefore sum up my remarks. Your mining interest will be damaged by decreasing the output and adding to the cost of production. The question of the cost of production was very well treated by the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. It is a fact that, if you take from any of these pits 10 per cent. or anything like that amount of their productive working, and so stop this particular market, you damage the other portion of the produce, to the infinite disadvantage both of the owner and of the men he employs. You damage the working classes, and when you do that you deprive the farmer of his best market, because the working classes are his best customers. You damage your manufacturers by adding to their expenses in obtaining raw material and in the cost of reaching foreign markets. I can only repeat that the damage you cause must in my opinion far exceed any present gain by the tax you propose. I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If I may be permitted to intervene for a few moments in this debate, I hope there will be nothing in what I have to say to cause my inclusion in the list of long-winded sinners who were the object of so much complaint a few nights ago. I understood the hon.

  815
  Baronet opposite to say that coalowners during recent years had not received as much out of their properties as the landowners of this country.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. As much as their landlords have received.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Oh, the royalty owners?
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: Yes, the royalty owners.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon, because if that had been so I should have commiserated with him in the extreme. He appeared to attach great importance to extremely cheap wheat. Wheat for many years had been extremely cheap, with the result that the growth of wheat in this country had diminished by a great deal more than one half. I do not know whether, in the interests of the manufacturers, the working classes, and nearly all other classes of the population, the hon. Baronet thinks that coal should be equally cheap, and whether he would view with the same satisfaction a great reduction in the production of coal in this country as he seemed to view the enormous reduction in the growth of wheat.
  Sir, I have no intention whatever of travelling over the general grounds of the proposals contained in the Budget, but, following the example of the hon. Gentleman who resumed this debate, I desire to limit my observations to the export duty on coal. I was extremely glad to hear from my right hon. friend the Minister for Agriculture that he had listened to a very instructive and informing speech from my hon. friend, but if I am to be perfectly frank, I confess I was unable to perceive that he had profited very much by that instruction. However that may be, I desire to devote my attention entirely to that branch of the question to which I have referred, and as far as I can to reinforce the views which have been urged by the hon. Member. We have been told from the first that this proposal to place an export duty on coal was based on the belief that the tax
  816
  would be paid by the foreign consumer. I am not quite sure that the Government are now quite as confident in that belief as they were at one time; their later statements are to the effect that the tax, or a part of it, will be paid by the foreigner, which is a very different thing. I do not know that I should be prepared to go quite as far as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton went yesterday, when, as I understood him, he said that no export duty ought to be placed on any article other than an article which was in the nature of a monopoly. But I am quite prepared to make this admission, that where it can be shown that in any particular class of coal that we export from Great Britain we have a monopoly, and that the foreigner cannot do without it. There, no doubt, you can, and you will, give effect to the belief and intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the foreigner will be made to pay the duty. But your ability to impose that burden upon the foreigner will be limited strictly to that particular description of coal. What proportion of the total amount exported from this country does that kind of coal represent? The total amount exported is 42,000,000, and of that, in 1900, 18,500,000 tons were supplied by South Wales. There is, therefore, a large amount beyond the Welsh coal to be reckoned with. With regard to the best coal, I admit there is very little doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, and that the foreigner will have to pay. But as to the rest of the coal which is exported, unless we are absolutely misled by the statements of hon. Gentlemen interested in that industry, I cannot help thinking it may be a very different story. Where does this other coal come from? In 1900, from Durham and Northumberland alone 14,000,000 tons were exported, or one-third of the total amount. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture said he knew a great deal about the way in which these figures were prepared, and that a large quantity of the coal attributed to Northumberland in reality went from Durham. But the figures with which I have been favoured are very explicit. They give the total export from Durham as 5,600,000 tons, and the total export from Northumber-

  817
  land as 8,300,000 tons. I think my right hon. friend should have produced greater proof of the knowledge he professes before he could expect those who have given some attention to this subject and been supplied with figures of a positive character to credit the mixing of the amounts in the manner he has described.
  If I might be permitted for a few moments to examine the position of Northumberland, I think I shall be able to show the House very clearly that it is not nonsense altogether on the part of the coal industry in that district to object to this tax, and that there is some real and genuine cause for apprehension on their part as to what the effect of this tax may be with regard to the export of coal in their district. The case they submit to Parliament is this. In 1900 in Northumberland they produced 11,500,000 tons of coal, and of that they exported 8,500,000 tons; in other words, 80 per cent. of the whole production in that county. But there is this to be observed about Northumberland, that not only is there little or no demand at all for local consumption, but the situation of the coalfield is such that it is impossible for them to dispose of the great bulk of their coal unless they dispose of it by export, and for this reason the adjacent markets are already occupied. The market to the north is supplied by Scotland; that to the west is supplied by Cumberland; and that to the south is supplied from Durham and Yorkshire. Consequently, the whole mining industry in Northumberland has been developed and the capital sunk with a view of extending the great export trade. And if by any unfortunate accident that trade should fail them, so far as I have been able to learn I should not envy the prospect of the industry or the enormous population which is dependent upon it in that part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman met these objections by saying, in the first place, that the amount of coal required abroad was so enormous that it never could be met without what we sent them at present. In a moment or two I will compare the relative amounts supplied by Northumberland and Durham and foreign countries for export, and I think my right hon. friend himself will see that this
  818
  reply upon that point was hardly sufficient. Then he said that the reason why there is no demand at present in the adjacent counties is this, it is because the freights into Yorkshire are more, than the freights to the ports abroad where they have been in the habit of sending their coal. That, no doubt, is perfectly true, and it is one of the reasons which adds to their apprehensions. Go to the railways, says the right hon. Gentleman, make better terms with them; and what will they get if they do? It is not like railways abroad. In Germany they are always ready to give preferential rates either to coal or agricultural produce—or, indeed, to any produce which enters into competition with us; but nobody knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whether it is for coal or agricultural produce, or whatever it is, railway rates are always the subject of constant complaints in this country.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: They do give preferential rates.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am not sure about that, and that is not the reason which prevents Northumberland supplying the home markets at present. The home markets are occupied already, but if it were possible to make a change in the source of supply the only result would be to hamper industries in other parts of the country and to throw people out of employ, if not in Northumberland in other districts. Then it is said why do you not export Northumberland coal to some of the southern parts of this country, where coal is exceedingly dear at present, and where it is greatly needed. The answer to that is that what is wanted in these southern parts is house coal; and the great bulk of Northumberland coal is sea-coal, and not suited for the purpose. Under all these circumstances, we cannot be surprised that it has become with them a question of vital importance in that part of England whether their trade in coal will be able to hold its own under the new conditions in future. What are the facts for our guidance and information upon this point? Northumberland has to compete with Germany, Belgium, and with France, who export coal like ourselves. It is a fact that these

  819
  three countries alone in 1898 exported no less than 23,000,000 tons of coal in direct competition with British coal.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, no.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny, I think, that Germany alone exported 14,000,000 tons of coal—as much as Durham and Northumberland combined. Moreover, it is stated on the highest authority that the German coal is nearly equal in quality to the north-country coal, and it is positively asserted that 2d. or 3d., or at the outside 4d., per ton would turn the scale in favour of the Germans. This fact is confirmed, to a certain extent, by the fact that large contracts have already been recently lost to the north of England, and given to Germany instead of to England. These statements may be exaggerated, for what I know, but the information is given to me as absolutely reliable; and, if they be anything approaching the truth, how is it possible in the future that we can continue to compete successfully with an additional weight of a shilling per ton?
  I have listened with great attention to the replies which have been given upon this subject, and I am bound to say that it seems to me, so far, that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to meet these various objections. There is another point on which I certainly did expect to hear something from the right hon. Gentleman, and it is this. That while the coal exported from this country is all of different classes and qualities, they are all taxed at precisely the same rate. This has been repeatedly urged, and the justice and force of this argument cannot, I think, be denied. I joined myself in this appeal when I had the privilege of saying a few words on this subject a few nights ago, but as the right hon. Gentleman has apparently either forgotten or ignored the question altogether in his speech last night, perhaps I may be permitted to repeat in a very few words the statements which have been made upon this point. The prices of the best Welsh coal are said to be from 16s. to 20s. a ton, those of the north-country coal from 10s. to 12s., and there is another class of coal not worth more than 8s. per ton. The result is that the tax on the worst class of coal is rather
  820
  more than two and a half times as much as on the best; and with regard to this there is a general agreement that even with the extra shilling a ton the best coal could always hold its own. Even the exporters are willing to admit that. As or the others, they are placed in this extraordinary position. The worst coal or which they declare that the market is imperilled abroad, if it is not already destroyed, has to pay two and a half times as much as the best coal, which can command a market whenever and wherever it pleases. Surely that is a manifest anomaly and injustice, which could not have been contemplated when this proposal was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not attributing in any way blame to the right hon. Gentleman. I can quite understand, and it must be perfectly obvious, that it was impossible for him to get the information required on all these points before his proposals had been declared without the secrets of his Budget escaping. The existing contracts of which we have heard so much in the course of this debate was a case in point, and I suspect that this question of the different classes of coal all being taxed at the same rate is another. But that is no reason why an injustice should be allowed to continue after the facts are made known.
  There is another point upon which I should also like to say a word, and it is on the possible effect of the proposals on the wages of the miners in Northumberland. There and in Durham wages are assessed and adjusted according to the price of coal at the pit's mouth, and if by any misfortune the Chancellor of the Exchequer should turn out to be wrong, and the price of coal at the pit's mouth in Northumberland should be less than it has been, then the miners' wages would fall in proportion. I confess this adds to the misgiving with which I regard this part of my friend's proposals in their present form. Suppose experience should prove that a mistake had been made, that the duty imposed on this inferior coal could not be and has not been paid by the foreigner, that the industry of the North of England has, in consequence, been seriously damaged, if not destroyed, that a number of pits have been closed, and a great number of workmen have been thrown

  821
  out of employment—what would be the position of a Government who had made such a mistake when that mistake was discovered? Rightly and properly they would be condemned, and when Parliament met under ordinary circumstances it would be strange if they were not turned out and another Government put into their place. The tax would of course be repealed, and we on this side of the House have had very good warning from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to where the substitute will be found. They have told us very distinctly they would begin by doubling the rates on agricultural land, and in some way or other would endeavour to put the whole burden on that kind of property. I am perfectly frank and open upon this subject. It adds to my desire that no mistake should be made on this occasion, and I should say to my brother agriculculturists that we ought to be warned in time. That is one of the reasons, but not the only reason, why I urge these views on the House of Commons this afternoon. So far as I am able to judge, the tax seems to me to be an unfair and unjust tax so far as it relates to the inferior coal which is exported from this country. There is no doubt that it has already created a great disturbance in that industry, and in all probability it will create more, and although on general grounds, and with this exception, I approve and support the proposals of the Budget of my right hon. friend, I most earnestly hope that he will take into consideration the representations that have been made with regard to the effect of this tax on the inferior kinds of coal exported from Great Britain, and that, when we come into Committee he will either propose or agree to amendments in the direction that is desired.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I desire to support the Amendment of my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton. In common with all who view the ever-growing and present abnormal growth in the expenditure of the Government, I expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose additional taxation. But I was not prepared to find that the Chancellor would be so hard driven as to be compelled to make proposals so reactionary
  822
  and mischievous in character as he has done. Hitherto we had regarded him as an orthodox free trader, and, so he tells us, he still regards himself. But in his present Budget he advocates the imposition of a tax of a character that has been abandoned for over half a century, and few, if any, ever expected to see it re-enacted in this country. Indeed, so far has the right hon. Gentleman backslidden that he has made a proposal, namely, that of the tax on coal, that would be repudiated by even the most advanced protectionist. The example of the United States is often dangled before us as one worthy to be followed, and as being that of advanced protectionists. Yet even in the United States they would not impose such a tax as that proposed by the Chancellor. The first article in the Constitution expressly prohibits the levying of duty on exports. Yet in order to obtain a comparatively small amount, small when contrasted with the enormous sum now necessary in order to meet present expenditure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taxed one of the first necessaries of life, and an article upon which our supremacy as a mercantile power is altogether dependent; for I have no hesitation in asserting that our importance as a Power is just in ratio to that of the position of our mercantile marine. We have heard much of the desirability of keeping up a strong Navy. I quite agree with that proposition, as long as we have a strong mercantile marine, but no longer. Among the many salutary lessons taught us by what I should have liked to describe as the late war, is that of the extreme difficulty of successfully invading a country. That ought to have one good effect; it ought to convince those cowardly people who, in combination with some City financiers, get up these periodical scares, and who prevail with whatever Government may be in office in rushing into reckless and useless expenditure. We may hope that much may be learnt from the costly war in which we have been so long engaged, and which, if rumour be correct, will last to the day of judgment if some people are to be the arbitrators of the terms of settlement. We believe that the chief duty of the Navy is to protect our trade and commerce, but with a few more

  823
  such Budgets as the present one, we will have no trade and commerce to protect.
  Sir, for what has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taxed the food of the people and disorganised and dislocated our foreign trade? In order to raise a sum that would be covered by threepence in the pound of income tax. Now, why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer make so little use of this convenient tax? In this the right hon. Gentleman had an instrument ready to his hand, for this tax has been rightly called a war tax or an emergency tax. It has very many qualifications superior to any other. To begin with the limitations put upon such an impost—no one can be so taxed as to reduce him to the position of being unable to provide the necessaries, at least, if not some of the luxuries, of life. How different is the case of the poor widow striving to bring up a young family without having recourse to parish relief, when she finds that she has to pay duty on so necessary an article of diet as sugar. Again, if the income tax be 6d. in the £, or, as I maintain it ought to be, under present circumstances, 1s. 6d., it would not require an additional employee to collect the extra taxation. But I would like to know how many more employees will be required by the complicated system just introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? A little army of non-producers must be saddled upon the over-burdened taxpayers of this country, and as far as the coal tax is concerned, in order to bring in a sum that would be covered by 1d. in the £ of income tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when proposing the tax upon coal spoke of the large profits made by colliery proprietors during the last eighteen months or two years. He very carefully abstained from referring to the lean years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in obtaining a large number of statistics to prove the money gained—he did not take any trouble, as far as we know, to ascertain the money lost in other years; and it was very flattering to those of us who represent the constituencies in which the best Welsh steam coal is obtained (which by the way is only four constituencies) to know that the coal is of such a superior quality. But superior as it is, it is not essential, though undoubtedly the best steam coal in the world. The area
  824
  of the South Wales coal-field is about one thousand square miles, but the area in which the coal that has given the name of South Wales so much prominence is only one hundred and twenty square miles, just one-eighth of the total area. And even the best coal in ordinary times is not so much sought after as appears to be the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fixing the selling price he seems to be under the impression that it is only a question of the amount demanded and the purchaser would have no other choice than to comply.
  But the President of the Board of Trade the other evening rightly expressed the proper view when he said it was largely a question of freights; and, that being so, the addition of 1s. per ton in the shape of a tax will mean that much less freight will be available to compete in foreign markets. In fact the tax is just 1s. in favour of the foreign shipowner and the handicapping of our own. The tax will just reduce our markets as represented by the distance that the freight of 1s. per ton would carry a cargo of coal. Now we complain that a section of a trade should be penalised by this tax. We may say that mine-owners and their workmen and the shipowners are chief sufferers by this tax. Some of us know the risks the mine-owners have to endure in order to win the coal. We also know that the miner risks his life in order to raise it from the dark caverns in which it is found. But what do the royalty owners risk in the matter? Not a farthing. Has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer heard of the proposals to nationalise royalties? Well, this measure will be an inducement for those who hold such views to persevere in their agitation. I maintain that such a proposal is not more unreasonable than the one to put a tax of 1s. per ton upon exported coal. Hitherto it has been said that Wales has not suffered so much from agricultural depression as some other portions of the United Kingdom. That is to be attributed to the fact that in Glamorgan and Monmouth there have been so many flourishing industries in which many thousands have been employed, and which furnished so good a market for food supplies. Many of the workers keep up their connection with their old homes, and large sums of money

  825
  find their way to the rural districts. Anything that will hurt the great industries of South Wales will react upon the whole of the Principality. Indeed, some seven hundred thousand people in Glamorgan and Monmouth depend entirely upon coal exporting industries. So strongly do the miners of South Wales feel the imposition that I myself have received eighty resolutions, representing one hundred and twenty thousand miners, in which they bitterly complain of the injustice of being singled out to bear this additional burden. They realise that they have to bear a double burden. First, a tax on their wages and on the increased cost of sea-borne food. Whatever may be our opinion about the present war, we must have felt proud of the manner in which our men rallied to the colours when called upon at the commencement of hostilities. I certainly felt very proud of my native county, which in every way sent out some four thousand men to the front, and most of them were miners, whose fellow workmen subscribed to keep the wives and families of those who are fighting for their country. And how does the Government recognise the gallantry of those brave men? By taxing their one great industry. It is for us who have some regard to the principles under which our country rose to what we are now afraid is its greatest height; we must at least offer our strongest opposition to a measure that seeks to wreck and destroy the splendid services of Peel and Cobden, Bright and Gladstone, and reject the most reactionary and mischievous Budget of modern times. I trust that the Government will do something to bring about a reconciliation and pacification of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. It is the City financiers who get up these political and war scares. They do not realise how difficult it is to conquer a free people. One of the grandest things connected with the late war was to see the sons of the Empire rallying round the grand old flag. I trust the same policy will be pursued as in Canada during the rebellion there, when Lord Durham went out and brought peace in a very short time, and as was followed in Australia after the Lawlor insurrection, when self-government was given to Victoria. I would never be a party to a settlement which
  826
  did not secure the supremacy of Great Britain in South Africa. There is no mistake about that, but granting that, there should be nothing short of self-government to the new colonies.
  COLONEL MILWARD: In the last two speeches we have seen the difficulties of debating a specific subject on a general Amendment. Here and there we have a speech interjected on one specific subject, such as the coal tax, in the midst of a general debate. I have an Amendment on the Paper to discuss another specific subject, viz., the question of the sugar tax as it will affect our colonies; but I have thought it better not to persevere with it. This is a subject in which I myself have taken a very great interest for the last five years; one where a great deal of injustice has been done to our colonial possessions; and which involves a large amount of capital invested, not only in the West Indies but in Australia and Natal. It seems to me that it would be scarcely respectful to these colonies to discuss this question unless we could do so in a serious way. The colonies will naturally be looking to the English papers to see what has taken place, and they would be disappointed if they saw that, instead of giving an evening to it, we had simply interjected a speech here and there on this important subject, on a general motion regarding the finance of the country. Therefore I come at once to the Amendment which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. I should like, however, to say that perhaps the most striking speech delivered yesterday or to-day was that of the hon. Member for Waterford. It was painful and interesting. Painful because it was a studied attack on the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, who has many admirers on both sides of the House; and interesting, because the hon. Member said that the whole of the sympathies of the Irish Members were given to the Boers in the present war. I take that to be a proof that the question of Home Rule is absolutely dead as a question of practical politics. The hon. Member would not have made that statement otherwise; but from it we are taught what to expect should Home Rule ever be granted to Ireland.

  827
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke very much more strongly at Bradford the other day than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton yesterday, and described the financial outlook as appalling. I cannot see that it is in the least appalling. I see that the country is enormously rich, that it is spending its money very freely, and is apparently well able to pay for all its wants. True, there is great need for economy, but I can see nothing in the financial outlook which can be properly described as appalling. I wish to say, in passing, that it is curious in dealing with figures to observe what different aspects can be placed upon those figures. For instance, they told quite a different story to the right hon. the Memberfor East Wolverhampton and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. Taking the last year of Lord Rosebery's administration, and comparing it with this year, I find that the national income in 1895–6 amounted to £90,192,000, while the income this year is estimated at £143,255,000—or an increase of £47,000,000, although no one can say, inside or outside the House, that the burden of taxation is by any means particularly heavy. Certainty it is not appalling. Out of that increase of £47,000,000, the increase of national taxation accounts for £22,067,000, and the normal increase of the income of the country has been no less than £24,996,000; that is to say, putting the new taxes out of account altogether, the actual increase of income has amounted to £25,000,000. Of course the expenditure has largely increased. We have heard that the expenditure on the Navy and Army has increased by no less than £24,000,000, but in connection with that increase there was an interesting statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at Bradford. He stated that during the years 1890–5 the navies of France, Germany, Russia, and the United States had increased at the rate of 6 per cent., whereas in the years 1895–1901 they had increased at the rate of 50 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, could not say that that was due to their own necessities, but this was certain, that it would be impossible for this country to sit
  828
  down to a position of that kind. If foreign nations increase their navies it is necessary that we should increase not only our Navy, but our Army too. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton says that the Navy is our first line of defence, our second line of defence, and our third line of defence. That is perfectly true, but after that comes the Army. We have seen many strange things in connection with the present war. We saw, to our utter surprise, Natal invaded by an enemy; we saw Kimberley and Mafeking shut up for weeks by great bodies of Boers. But if this surprise took place when we were fighting a small country in South Africa, what might not the surprise be in connection with large Continental countries, which were increasing their armies and their navies at the rate mentioned? I should like to point out that the measure of reform for our Army passed last week is a measure of decentralisation, and will not necessarily increase the cost of the Army. There is no doubt that a great deal of the expense of the Army has arisen from the overgrown nature of the establishment. I thoroughly believe that when we have not one army, but six, when we have generals at the head of these six army corps capable of supervising closely the expenditure, we will find a very large economy in the administration of the Army. I should like to mention one concrete case, which illustrates the necessity for reform. After the attack on Spion Kop, the chief of the staff telegraphed down to Natal asking for volunteer officers from the volunteer regiments in Natal to go to the front. Twenty seven of these young fellows, from twenty five to thirty years of age, many of them engaged in business, volunteered. They all knew the country, and many of them knew the Boer and the Kaffir languages, but, to their utter surprise, eighteen out of the twenty seven were ordered by the War Office to join batteries either in England or India! I think that shows how the War Office is conducted. The total excess over ordinary expenditure at the present time is three millions. The right hon. Gentleman put it at five millions.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: The Returns circulated this

  829
  morning show that the actual sum is £9,300,000.
  COLONEL MILWARD: It is very curious when we are dealing in figures that we can often find different figures which express very much the same idea. Last year we added by new taxation £11,067,000, and this year £11,000,000, making together £22,067,000. I fully and frankly admit that our normal expenditure is increasing, and that as regards defence it has been forced on us. But if we are forced to this additional expenditure we will not shrink from it, and we are as well able to bear it as other nations. My right hon. friend the Member for Preston referred to the great increase in expenditure in France, Italy, Germany, and Russia, but if we look at the continually increasing wealth of this country there is no doubt whatever that we will not be the first to give in if it is a matter even of increasing our armaments. No one doubts the vast increase in the prosperity and well-being of the working classes. We see it on all sides, especially on Saturdays and Sundays. We see that pleasures which formerly were outside the purview of their lives now enter very largely into them. Another class which have also advanced in wealth and prosperity are the income-tax payers. In the last year of the late Administration the income tax at 8d. in the £ produced £15,600,000, and last year at 1s. in the £ it produced £26,920,000. It is very easy to find from these figures what was the income of income-tax payers in these two years. In 1894–5 the incomes on which the tax was levied amounted to £468,000,000, whereas last year they amounted to £538,000,000. Such a story in finance was never told in any country before, as that the incomes of one class of the community should in six years have increased from £468,000,000 to £538,000,000. And it must be remembered that in that class there are no doubt many men—landowners, agriculturists, and perhaps clergymen—whose incomes have not increased at all. Look at it from another point of view. Deducting the amount of the tax, there remained to that class £452,000,000 in the first mentioned year, and £511,000,000 last year. I am not here
  830
  to defend the income tax. I believe that in many cases it is a very hard tax, and presses unduly on certain classes such as landowners, agriculturists, widows, clergymen, and people on settled incomes. I made a suggestion once or twice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I venture to renew now. It is, whether it would not be possible to collect a part of the income tax half-yearly in advance. I believe that there are a great many people who would rather pay a part of their income tax in advance in August or September than have to pay it all at the beginning of the year. A man with an income of £700 has at the shilling rate to pay £35 at the beginning of the year, when he has to pay rent, rates, and doctors' and other bills, which come in at that time. I believe if some inducement were offered many people would pay part of the tax in advance, and the Treasury would have five or six millions in the autumn and a great deal of satisfaction would be afforded to the persons concerned. In conclusion I would say that if this Amendment is pressed to a division, it can only be regarded as a want of confidence vote in the Government. No Government could possibly stand after being defeated on an important Amendment to the Finance Bill. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite—I have the greatest respect for him—that it would be very desirable if we could discuss questions connected with the finances of the country without introducing party questions; but it is exceedingly difficult to do so. It is unfortunate that on a question of duties of this kind one must vote on party lines. Members must vote aye or nay, as it is a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and will be so regarded by the House and the country.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it will probably be for the convenience of hon. Members if we take the division to-day, leaving the general question to be discussed further on the day on which this Bill will again be put down for discussion. I have seen a crowd of Members on either side rise on every occasion, and I can only address this word of consolation to them—I have no doubt that, either on that

  831
  further occasion or on the details of the Bill, they will have ample opportunity of enlightening the House with their opinions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this was in reality a war Budget. He said:—"What is the main feature of this Budget? It is the war expenditure." In a sense that is perfectly true. No doubt the huge sums which have been dealt with last year and this year directly arise from the war. The war, past, present, and future—the War in its inception, its conduct, and its probable end, comes within the limits of this discussion; and you, Sir, have shown that that is so by the great latitude you have allowed in the course of the debate. But I doubt whether it would be either usual or convenient to use this occasion for the purpose of discussing the policy or the conduct of the war. The House has had repeated occasions of discussing the subject, and will have others, no doubt. We must have opportunities within a very few weeks of discussing our present position in relation to the war in South Africa. I cannot help thinking we should not be doing justice to the growing feeling of weariness on the part of the country if we did not. The country is desirous, no doubt, of securing benefit to ourselves and to our Empire from all the sacrifices that have been made in the war; but, at the same time, I am sure I am expressing what is within the knowledge of most Members who hear me when I say that there is an almost universal desire for peace—for a peace, not only on reasonable, but, I would rather say, on generous and honourable terms; but, at the same time, for a peace which would be final and satisfactory. That is what the country desires, and we are in a great state of uncertainty and darkness as to the steps that are being taken at this moment in order to secure that desirable result. That is a matter which is necessarily forcing itself upon the attention of the House. It must be dealt with before much further time has elapsed, but I venture to doubt whether this is the proper occasion for it to-day. To-day we are concerned, not with the war itself or with the expenditure upon the war, but with the financial arrangements that are proposed by the Government for meeting that expenditure. It is to
  832
  these that this Amendment addresses itself, and it seeks also to direct—and this, perhaps, is its main object, as I understand the motive of my right hon. friend—the attention of the House and the country to the startling facts disclosed as to the huge growth of our normal expenditure.
  There are two purposes, Sir, to which there seems apparently to be an idea, in some quarters at all events, of applying this great war expenditure. There is a tendency to use it for the purpose of blinding our eyes to the rate at which the normal charges have been allowed to increase. Of any such intention I completely acquit the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has, not only in his Budget speech, but since then, been most honest and outspoken in his language on this subject. More than once we have been surprised and gladdened by a healthy outburst of a strong economical fervour from the right hon. Gentleman. We have on more than one occasion praised his frankness and his courage in doing so but I am bound to say that on further reflection we have qualified a little our estimate, not, indeed, of his frankness, but of his courage. The right hon. Gentleman appears sometimes to forget that he is not a mere watchman set upon a tower to warn us of some impending danger. He is above all other men the particular public official who is charged with the duty of protecting us from that danger. He has given us on several occasions eloquent rebukes and exhortations, addressed, it seems to us, rather to his colleagues than to the House; but they should, I venture to say, have been administered to his colleagues in their respective Departments. He has hinted that we should not think hardly of him if we knew all the things that have been asked of him, and what it was that he had replied. I can well believe it. I can well believe that the demands made upon him as Chancellor of the Exchequer have been extravagant beyond our knowledge, if not beyond our conception, and I feel sure that he met those demands in firm and emphatic language. But that does not alter the fact of his responsibility, and the fact that it is the duty of the Treasury to check extravagance. The Treasury does not discharge that duty by mere

  833
  complaints. What are the facts? I am not going to plunge into figures, because for one reason, although there is really no conflict on the general effect of the figures, I notice that every set of figures that is quoted differs in some way or another from those that we have had before. But I have one or two figures, at all events, that I think are beyond suspicion. The increase in the ordinary expenditure of the country since the present Government came into power has been 33 millions sterling. The right hon. Gentleman meets this sometimes by asking us what we would have reduced, by asking us to put our finger on the particular item which should be diminished. In that he makes a demand on us that I think he is not entitled to make. It is not our business to suggest particular reductions, and we have not the information which is at his disposal which would enable us to do so. Take an individual case. Take the expenditure on the Army and the Navy. It has increased by £22,600,000. I said I would avoid figures, but here are some which I think set the growth of expenditure in rather a strong light. In 1881–2 the ordinary cost of the Army and Navy was per head of the population 14s., in 1891–2, ten years later, it was 17s., and this year, after another decade has passed, it is 30s. per head of the population. The right hon. Gentleman and some of his friends say to us, "Do you want to starve the Army?" and we reply, "No." "Then," it is said, "why do you grumble at this expenditure? We are asked," Do you think, on the other hand, we do not need a Navy?" We say, "Yes, we quite agree that we must have a strong Navy." "Then why do you cavil at the Naval Estimates?" is the rejoinder. There are two qualifications with which we accept any Estimates for the most excellent purposes. In the first place, do these Estimates give us an army and navy strong in proportion to the money spent? Here is where the strong Chancellor of the Exchequer in a strong Government would come in. I have never seen in Committee of Supply much useful work done in the way of reduction of expenditure, although, of course, there is abundant use and public benefit in the free discussion of the matters involved.
  834
  I confess I thought that the hon. Member for Exeter in the course of an admirable speech last night made a suggestion which well deserves consideration, and that is whether on the Army and Navy Estimates there should not be a periodical committee of inquiry—not a Standing Committee, to which I should be entirely opposed. A Standing Committee to which these Estimates should be referred automatically would destroy the responsibility of the Minister, and, what is worse, would destroy his own sense of responsibility. But a periodical examination every five, six, or seven years would, I think, be a great source of enlightenment to the House, and would bring larger number of Members into some acquaintance with the facts with which you have to deal in this matter. The only organised opinion in this House on the question of military and naval expenditure is an opinion organised to increase and not to scrutinise or to check expenditure. But our object is to secure well expended money. We are by no means satisfied that this is now done. When fresh items of expenditure are incurred—and the relentless march of military inventiveness no doubt makes that necessary from time to time, for the art of war, unfortunately, is not an art which stands still—I cannot help thinking it might often occur that some older expenditure might be dropped, and some relief obtained in that way.
  My confidence in the present Administration is shaken when I remember what can occur in these matters. I remember a case, which, perhaps, some Members of the House may also bear in mind, where a Minister was censured by the House of Commons on account of a deficiency in small arms ammunition. This thoughtless Minister had provided only ninety-two million rounds—at any rate, he had provided an amount which, considering the enormous pace at which the article could be produced, and considering also that at that moment the powder that was used was practically not out of the state of being experimented with, his military advisers told him was a sufficient provision. The House of Commons thought differently, and that happy result to which I have referred followed. A Minister came in who immediately introduced a special Vote for a large sum

  835
  of money to make good this frightful deficiency. Five or six years have passed, and no doubt the Votes have been carefully scrutinised by these Gentlemen who are so sensitive to the possible deficiencies of the country in every respect. Yet, when they managed to lead us into a big war we are informed, to our great surprise—and our surprise is still greater when we ask why we were informed of the matter—that in the first days of the war they only had in reserve 3,300 rounds of small arms ammunition. It was not for want of money. This was not due to starving the Army, because the Estimates had been increased from eighteen millions to well on to thirty millions. Therefore, I can only take it as a terrible example of maladministration and a proof to the world in such a concrete form as they have seldom had before that the mere spending of money and heaping up of Estimates does not, after all, prevent occasional lapses from perfect efficiency.
  But that by the way. I have dealt with one of the qualifications with which we regard estimates for military purposes. The other is this. Expenditure depends on your necessities. But you yourselves are the principal agents in many cases in creating these necessities. If you pursue a restless, pushing, bouncing policy, your needs may be indefinitely multiplied. The right hon. Gentleman attributes this great expenditure to the growth of the Empire, to the necessity of guarding the frontiers of India and Canada, and to the increased armaments of four or five Great Powers. There is nothing new in India or Canada. The only thing that I know about India is that the Government of which I was a member determined upon a certain arrangement for the defence of the Indian frontier, where it was most liable to attack; that the present Government, the moment they came into power, reversed that arrangement, and after looking at the matter and having experience of it for two or three years they reverted to the arrangement which they had abandoned. There is no new necessity in that direction. As to Canada, I can only say it is a most ill-omened reference. I never knew before that there was any necessity for openly and avowedly taking Canada into consideration in regard to our military require-
  836
  ments. It is difficult, therefore, to see how the dangers have increased. Then there is the action of other Powers. The action and reaction between themselves of the estimates of expenditure of different nations are extremely difficult to follow, and it is hard to say which are foremost and which are only following on the others. The Minister of Agriculture quoted figures showing how the military expenditure of Continental Powers had increased, and he actually quoted the increase of the French and German expenditure since 1870, as if that had anything to do with the position of this country. There are two main factors only which I can discern which have produced any change in the last five or six years. The first is the colonial energy of Germany, which brings a severe and steady competition against us in the markets of the world. But that is not a competition that you will meet by any armaments that military expenditure can provide. It is a competition that must be met by the increased intelligence and the better training of those who conduct your trade. So far as I am aware there is no direct geographical friction between us and Germany in any part of the world. Therefore, that new development can have nothing to do with increased expenditure. The only other novelty consists in the braggart words and aggressive designs with which the present Government opened their career as an Administration, and in the claim they put forward to be the lineal inheritors of universal Empire. It is since that time that we have had nothing but troubles and critical situations all over the world. This is the true genesis of all this expenditure, and it is in these respects that you can introduce moderation into your military and naval expenditure. I am not going on to speak of education, of the Post Office, and other branches of expenditure, when we are met in the same way—"Are you in favour of education?" "Yes." "Then why do you grudge the sums we ask for?" Our doubt is whether the money is properly bestowed; and with regard to all those Civil Service branches of expenditure we find the same thing exemplified when we by accident come upon a concrete instance. The other day the ingenuity and pertinacity of

  837
  some of my hon. friends behind me provided an excellent instance of what I mean. We may be asked, "Are you in favour of having law officers of the Crown and good ones?" Yes, we are. We think they are a useful institution to the Government and to the country; but, on the other hand, we do not think the two law officers of the Crown should be paid £30,000 a year, when £19,000 was enough five or six years ago. That is the sort of thing which, on being disclosed, tends to make us doubt whether there is that careful administration that there ought to be. The truth is, the Government is demoralised by this huge expenditure. The feeling is, when you are throwing millions about, why should you care about thousands? It is here, from the strong vantage ground of the Treasury, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have so much effect if he chose. He speaks strongly in the House. He said last night—

  "I do not think—and I say this with the consciousness of my responsibility as Chancellor of the Exchequer—it possible for us to continue at the rate of increase which we have seen for the past six years without the gravest danger to the financial system which has been long established in this country, and to which, with its light and easy taxation of the industries of the country, I believe we owe much of our prosperity."
  Here is a picture of helplessness. The right hon. Gentleman does not know what it will end in, because expenditure such as I am deploring cannot be stopped. There are a great many items and channels in the present expenditure, great as it is, which necessarily may lead to increases in future years. You cannot suddenly stop. It is a slow process. It needs a great deal of courage and hard-heartedness. The right hon. Gentleman made an almost piteous appeal to the colonies. He said we must look for help in this Imperial expenditure to the colonies. That is too large a question to discuss now, and too large to be introduced in a casual way into a debate of this sort by a responsible Minister. But on what condition of a full share in the control of Imperial matters would any contribution to Imperial charges be made by the colonies?
  Well, Sir, I have said that the war is being used in some quarters for two purposes. The second purpose is that in our financial system there may
  838
  be new taxes introduced, slipped in which are permanent and capable of development, but which are introduced under cover of the patriotic feeling of the moment, and on the plea of making those who supported the war contribute to its cost. Of course I refer specially to the coal duty and the sugar duty. I will say nothing at present on the coal question, which has been so much discussed; but as the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what I have said about the sugar duty, I will say this, that if you are to open some new source of revenue like this, sugar is about the worst you can choose, inasmuch as it is the largest but one of the articles of food consumed by the people, not only when you take the sugar itself, but all the other articles into which it enters. It is emphatically the food of women, and especially of children, and when you say, "Let the working man pay his share," it will not be the working man who pays, as he would do if you taxed his tobacco or his beer, and possibly other things which he consumes personally, but this will come out of the money he allows for the maintenance of his family. It will therefore press upon the children and the home. I will not go further into the general question, but that was the reason which made me use the words to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Now this Amendment is directed against the financial proposals of the Government. I blame them for their careless administration, the proof of which is the steady growth of the Estimates. I blame them, for their imposing by their policy burdens which their own Chancellor of the Exchequer says cannot be increased without disaster.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said at the same rate.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We must expect the same rate of increase if the political circumstances continue the same. I believe the Government have chosen, with preferable alternatives-open to them, new sources of revenue which will prejudicially disturb trade and seriously diminish the comforts of the people.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman, in the

  839
  course of his speech, has attacked us for the nature of our taxation. He has attacked us for the extravagance which has, in his view, made that taxation necessary. Of the character of the taxation I mean to say nothing. The right hon. Gentleman's chief criticism was that in putting on the sugar tax we had taxed the wife and child of the working man himself. I do not draw that distinction between the working man and his family, nor do I believe that the working classes of this country deserve the taunt of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think the working man is prepared to regard with indifference taxation which does not happen to touch articles which he consumes, but touches only articles which are necessary to his wife and children. The chief part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted, not, however, to criticism of the taxation we have proposed, but to the cause which made that taxation necessary; and he has told us what everybody knows, and what we have never concealed, that the Estimates have grown very largely in the course of the last few years—the Civil Service Estimates, the Educational Estimates, and the Military Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman hints that we might economise in the salaries of the law officers and that we might greatly economise in our education. [Opposition cries of "No."] So I understand.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said we were not certain that the money is all well spent. We would vote more money for education if we had that security.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When we are talking about the amount of our taxation the question is whether we can economise or not. If we are not spending too much money on education, then no economy can be made under that head. But the main charge of the right hon. Gentleman is the growth on the military side of our expenditure. Nobody denies that. Have we got an Army or a Navy too great for our present necessities? That is the simple question we have before us, and I say, in view of the present needs of the Empire, neither our Army nor our Navy is too great. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "they are greater than they were in our time, and in our time the necessities were the same."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No. I said the natural necessities were the same; but I said also that new necessities had arisen in consequence of your policy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The "bouncing" policy to which he referred, I suppose. I do not know what that bouncing policy is. I know that when the right hon. Gentleman left office he and his friends left behind them unsolved five or six great questions between us and the great military Empires of the world, each one of which, if mismanaged, might have produced a great war. Was Fashoda, among other things, due to a bouncing policy on the part of the Government? Was it we who said that any interference of the French Power in the Valley of the Nile would be treated by us as an unfriendly act? Was that our bounce or your bounce? We do not blame you for that statement; we agree with it. But if you make these statements you must have defensive forces, naval and military, to enable you to back up a policy like that. When the right hon. Gentleman left office he had neither the naval nor the military forces which in our opinion are necessary for the defence of the Empire. And no man has shown—no man has attempted to show—that the expenditure on the Army, greatly as it has increased, has not given us increased military strength in proportion to the increased military expenditure. On the contrary, I think it can be demonstrated with mathematical certainty that, whether our Army be too big or too small, or the right size or the wrong size, at all events the money we now spend upon it gives us proportionately a much more effective, a much more mobile, and a much more useful force than the Army expenditure, smaller though it was, in the time of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to discuss the question of ammunition again, but the right hon. Gentleman actually had the extraordinary courage to get up in this House and remind us of the fact that he only left ninety-two millions of cartridges in stock, and that that amount, more than doubled by that which we hastened to provide, proved insufficient when war came. That is the evidence he gives of the preparation for war which

  841
  he and his friends made. It would be quite beyond my power at the present time and in the few minutes still left to me to take any survey of the responsibilities of this Empire; but I do say, in the light of recent events, in the light of the strain which the recent war has placed not only upon the men but upon the stores of this country, that it would be perfect insanity for us to allow our Army to sink back into the condition in which it was when the right hon. Gentleman left office in 1895. I do not know whether a united Liberal party are going rapidly to turn us out of office and to accept the responsibility of government. When they do, and when they have not merely to make speeches but to carry out actions, I think they will find that what we have done, costly as it has been, great as is
  the strain—and we admit it to be great—which we have placed upon the resources of the country, we have not done a single thing which they will not have to maintain, we have not raised our forces by a single man which they can afford to disband, we have not added a single ship which they can afford to put on one side. Under these circumstances, Sir, it appears to me to be mere folly to pretend at this time of day that we can run this great Empire, in the face of our recent experience, on Estimates framed on the scale which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends thought adequate six years ago.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 300; Noes, 123, (Division List No. 199.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Aird, Sir John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Chapman, Edward

  Flower, Ernest

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Charrington, Spencer

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Garfit, William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gordon, Hn J E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christen.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gretton, John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Bill, Charles

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hain, Edward

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Bigwood, James

  Denny, Colonel

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

  Bond, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Bull, William James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W-

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Butcher, John George

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Henderson, Alexander

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  Faber, George Denison

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

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

  Finch, George H.

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hope, J. F (Sheffleld, Brightside

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fisher, William Haves

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Hudson, George (Bickersteth)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Paey C.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Jebb, Sir Richard (Claverhouse

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir J. H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

  Spear, John Ward

  Kenyon, Jas. (Lancs, Bury)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

  Keswick, William

  Mow bray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskrk'

  Kimber, Henry

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Myers, William Henry

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Stock, James Henry

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stroyan, John

  Lawson, John Grant

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Farehm

  Parker, Gilbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Bristol, S

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lowther, C. (Cum., Eskdale)

  Purvis, Robert

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Kent)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Welby, Lt.-Col. AC E (Taunton

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Randles, John S.

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Whiteley, H (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (B'rm

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Ridley, Samuel F (Bethnal Gr'n)

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

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B (Camb.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Round, James

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigton

  Rutherford, John

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

  Younger, William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Crombie, John William

  Grant, Come

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

  Edwards, Frank

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Elibank, Master of

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Ellis, John Edward

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

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

  Burt, Thomas

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Holland, William Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fenwick, Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Caine, William Sproston

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Caldwell, James

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  844

  845

  Kitson, Sir James

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Strachey, Edward

  Lambert, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Perks, Robert William

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Leng, Sir John

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Levy, Maurice

  Priestley, Arthur

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Reed, Sir Edw. Jas. (Cardiff)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Rigg, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mather, William

  Robson, William Snowdon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morley Charles (Breconshire)

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Moss, Samuel

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfd

  Norman, Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Spencer, Rt Hn. CR. (Northants

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed; Debate arising.
  It being after Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

EVENING SITTING.
  PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation Bill.
    Ayr Harbour Order Confirmation Bill.
    Highland Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for Legalising Marriages heretofore solemnised in certain churches and places." Marriages Legalisation Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act, 1881." Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Prisons in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith." Prisons (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1900, to enable the School Board for Acton
    846
    to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Acton) Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Company to raise further moneys." Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of tramways and a tramroad in the urban districts of Walker, Wallsend, Willington Quay, and Gosforth, the borough of Tyne-mouth, and the parishes of Willington and Longbenton, in the county of Northumberland; and for other purposes." Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Wigan in regard to the construction of tramways and street improvements, and in regard to their electric lighting undertaking; and for other purposes." Wigan Corporation Tramways, &c. Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled "An Act for the acquisition of the undertaking of the Portmadoc, Croesor, and Beddgelert Tram Railway Company; to construct railways and works in the parishes of Treflys, Ynyscynhaiarn, and Beddgelert, in the county of Carnarvon, and the parish of Llanfrothen, in the county of Merioneth; to produce, store, and supply electricity for public and private purposes; and for other purposes." Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Urban District Council of Handsworth with respect to Tramways and Electric Lighting; and for other purposes." Handsworth Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Leeds to make street works and to lay down tramways; and to make better provision in regard to the loans of the Corporation and the health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes." Leeds Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for authorising the City of Birmingham Tramways Company, Limited, to construct additional tramways; and for other purposes." Birmingham (City) Tramways Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the South Essex Waterworks Company to construct further works; to extend their limits of supply; and for other purposes." South Essex Water Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Broadstairs and St. Peter's, in the county of Kent, to purchase the undertaking of the Broadstairs Waterworks Company; and to construct additional waterworks for the supply of their district and the parish of St. Peter Extra; and to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes." Broadstairs and St. Peter's Water and Improvement Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the South Lancashire Tramways Company for the construction of tramways and street improvements; and for other purposes." South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords].
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Chesterfield to execute certain street improvements and works; to make further provision for the improvement, local government, and health of the Borough of Chesterfield; and for other purposes." Chesterfield Improvement Bill [Lords].
    And also a Bill intituled, "An Act" or rendering valid certain Letters Patent
    848
    granted to James Godman Rodgers for an invention for improvements in rubber tyres for vehicles." Rodgers' Patent Bill [Lords].

    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [H.L.]
    Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
  LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS BILL [H.L.]

      WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL [H.L.]
      PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.].
      LEEDS CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.].
      BIRMINGHAM (CITY) TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
      SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.].
      BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.].
      SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.].
      CHESTERFIELD IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.].
      RODGERS' PATENT BILL [H.L.].
      Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  IRISH EDUCATION—TEACHING OF THE IRISH LANGUAGE.
  MR. DOOGAN: I rise to call attention to the question of teaching the Irish language in Irish schools and to move the resolution that stands in my name on the Paper. This is not a party but an educational question, and one which I claim can be supported in all quarters of the House. To explain the question it will be necessary for me to refer to the deplorable condition of the school life of the children in the Irish-speaking districts of Ireland. When they enter school they are set to what I consider an impossible task, and to one which inflicts upon them much pain, punishment, and mental torture. Those children who come from Irish-speaking homes, where they may have never heard a word of English in their lives, are set to struggle to acquire English,

  849
  which to them is a foreign language, through a vocalism to which their tongues have been untrained, their ears are unfamiliar, and they are frequently taught by a teacher who knows not a single word of Irish. The problem seems a most extraordinary one to have to solve. It is strange that such treatment should be inflicted on any civilised community—to teach English to Irish-speaking pupils who know no English through English alone, and by a teacher who knows no Irish, and therefore without the aid of any oral explanation whatever. Surely such a system is not education. Education means the drawing out of all the mental faculties and the training and developing of the intellectual powers. But this system must inevitably dwarf and stunt the intelligence and deprive the children of their natural rights' to be educated—a right to which every person born into the world is entitled. It is inevitable that such a system must and does produce illiteracy. This evil method has been going on now for a long period in the history of Ireland—ever since the Commissioners of National Education took over the educational destinies of our country about sixty-six years ago. At that time the native language was spoken extensively in the rural areas of Ireland. Since that time the home language of the pupils as an educative instrument has been entirely ignored, and the extensive vocabulary which the children have acquired at home and through intercourse with the people in the locality is absolutely shut out from them when they go to school as a means of acquiring new ideas. The children are quick, alert, and intelligent, and everybody knows that ideas can only be acquired through the instrumentality of language, so that the system of beginning the education of Irish children in a foreign language is most unenlightened and intolerable, and is perhaps the most barbarous that could be followed in any country in the world. The pupils acquire some words merely through the ear, and they may be taught to read by sight in a mechanical manner without understanding what they are reading. When these children escape from school—and escape they do at the earliest time they can, for the school to them is a veritable
  850
  prison—they having picked up a mere smattering of English, return to the old environment of hearing Irish spoken, and of speaking it themselves. They have acquired such a distaste for the sound of the English language that they have no desire for continuing their reading. In the districts in which they live they do not hear it, and as a natural consequence in the course of time their memory of that language dies out, and before they are fully grown up they have lost the capacity to read and write, and in the Census Returns they must necessarily be enrolled in the long local list of illiterates.
  The resolution which I respectfully submit to the trained intelligence and reasoned judgment of the House is the only real remedy for this absurd and irrational system. It asks the Government to put an end to a system that has been absolutely worthless as a system of education. It has deprived hundreds of thousands of the population in these Irish-speaking districts of anything resembling education at all. This resolution is purely a demand for educational reform—a demand made by the voice of the united people of Ireland. The bishops, managers, teachers, elected local boards, literary societies, the Nationalist press and the Nationalist party, and the Gaelic League are unanimously and loudly demanding this educational reform. The Gaelic League has pledged itself to continue its active and vigorous agitation for the revival of the Irish language as part of the educational curriculum of the country, and as it has behind it a widespread and growing movement I venture to think that the Government will find it impossible to refuse its just demand. The question then is ripe for settlement, and I hope the House to-night, by affirming this resolution, will render the continuation of this pernicious and anomalous system in the Irish-speaking districts an impossibility. The resolution before the House does not demand that this bilingual system should be applied to the schools of Ireland, which may fairly be described as being in English-speaking areas. It is only to be applied in Irish-speaking districts, where education, under the existing system, is a nullity, and where quick, intelligent children, born with the inherited capacity

  851
  of a gifted race, go to school with a large stock of words and ideas in their own language, and which should be utilised to lead them from the known to the unknown. Sir Patrick Keenan the late resident commissioner, a man of experience and broad mind, a lover of education, and a lover of his country, when he was head inspector of the Board, in 1855, criticised the fatal system of instruction pursued by the Board of Education in the districts of the west of Ireland where Irish alone was spoken by the people. He pointed out that the system in vogue was absolutely worthless. In his report in 1855 he refers to a school which had been seven years in operation, and in which he did not find that one child knew a word of English, or, in point of fact, knew anything else. He said it was a waste of time and a cruel injury to the children, which deprived them of the capacity for future development. In that report of 1855, nearly half a century ago, he set out in detail the system which ought to be followed by the Commissioners of Education.
  The system outlined by Sir Patrick Keenan, then, is what I am to-night submitting to the House. When a pupil enters a school his mental equipment should be utilised, and his intelligence developed, in the most thorough and efficient manner. He should be taught the alphabet of his own native language before being set to learn the grammar of a strange one. He should be taught to read his mother tongue intelligently, and then his education in English and other school subjects should be pursued through the medium of Irish. Sir Patrick Keenan pointed out that by that system no injury would be done to the acquisition of English; in fact, it would enable the children to learn English in a shorter time and in a more improved fashion, for their English would be strengthened and beautified by the vigour and imagery of the mother tongue. Sir Patrick Keenan repeated his recommendations in 1856, 1857, and 1858. In 1859 he was taken into office as chief of inspectors, when his duty to make annual reports ceased. In 1868 he gave evidence before the Royal Commission on Irish Education, in which he again expounded the same unchanged ideas on the subject. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Colonial
  852
  Secretary he gave Sir Patrick Keenan, in 1878, an important commission. He sent him out to investigate the language difficulty in Malta, and gave him a free hand: and Sir Patrick solved the problem by introducing into the Maltese schools the system of bilingualism—a system that throughout his long and glorious career he was unable to have established in the interests of the bright children of his own dear land.
  The absence of this system has done much wrong to generations of Irish children, who have grown up with their intelligence dwarfed, and who had to fight the battle of life on that account as mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. The conclusion irresistibly forced upon the impartial mind is that the policy of the Government during this long period was the extinction of the Irish language. I hope that hereafter a more advanced and enlightened policy will be carried out in the whole educational system of Ireland. Rules have recently been promulgated by the Board which go very far to reform the defects in the system of elementary education in Ireland, but when the question of teaching the Irish language had to be considered, although the Commissioners have taken a step in that direction, they have stopped short of bilingualism, which was adopted long ago with so much success in the Highlands of Scotland, and more recently with the happiest results in Wales. Countries such as Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and Switzerland recognise the great advantage, as an educational instrument, of two languages. Nobody can deny the disciplinary effect upon the mind of learning two languages; and the mere transference of thought from one language to the other is in itself a mental process of great educational value. The introduction of the mother tongue into school life would enormously enhance the education of the pupils. The use of the Irish language would tend to widen their ideas, to cultivate the imagination, to foster a love of literature, to improve the taste and enlarge the understanding. The Irish language is a classic of great beauty, imagery, and strength. It is as harmonious, copious, flexible, and as well suited to make "the sound an echo to the sense" as is the language of Ancient Greece. It is as capable of expressing

  853
  every idea of the mind and every affection of the heart as is any language of ancient or modern times. I hope, therefore, that the Chief Secretary will not stand in the way of the revival of the native language of the children in the Irish-speaking districts—a revival which is so essential in the interests of education and in the interests of Ireland.
  I appeal, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this resolution for an educational reform which has been too long delayed—a reform which has been sanctioned in Scotland and Wales by the educational authorities, and which has been so favourably reported upon by the inspectors. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: In rising to second the motion of my hon. friend I wish to say that I desire to deal with this subject as a literary question of great value to us from a philological point of view. I wish also to say that the Irish language is the only natural and most effective medium through which to educate the Irish child. This language is to Irishmen really a national treasure, and we should be unworthy of our position and failing in our duty if we did not attempt to keep it alive. I think I shall be able to prove to the House the value both from the intellectual and material standpoints of a bilingual education. I do not wish to go back into the history of the treatment which this language question has received from the English Government. Suffice it to say that ever since the English came over to us the language of our country was a special subject of detestation to them. In 1837 a law was passed by which it was made a criminal offence punishable by death to teach the language, and the men who continued to speak it had their land confiscated. Bui still the Irish kept their language and treasured it. Sixty years ago when a system of education exultantly termed "national" was introduced into the country, four-fifths of the Irish spoke the Irish language. It was the language of home; the language in which the children thought, and the only language by means of which they could receive ideas from their teachers in their schools Can it even be imagined by hon. Members of this House that the only language by which they could be taught did not
  854
  find a place in the curriculum of the schools? It would be difficult for Englishmen to understand the results of such a system. Fancy an English child, who knows only English, transplanted to, we will say Russia, and taught by a teacher who only knows Russian. During the first six months what would happen to the child? The language by which he could receive ideas is not used in the country, and how is it possible that such a child could be effectively instructed? Such was the condition of the Irish child, and such has it remained. Such a system of education is unjust, and must tend to blunt and retard the progress of education among our people. Only a few nights ago the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated that one of the reasons why Irishmen were not appointed to lucrative positions in Ireland was that they were not sufficiently educated. Even the right hon. Gentleman must admit that Irishmen are capable of receiving education; the Irishman is proud to be able to say he is the descendant of a people who loved education and carried its light abroad before England was a nation; but I am afraid I must agree with the Chief Secretary in this respect. Irishmen are not so well educated as they should be. What is the cause; are they incapable of receiving it? Are they the descendants of a race so stupid and blunt that no education can improve them? Look at the Irishman abroad—in America, in the colonies—where, under the influence of that liberty which you deny him at home, he progresses and goes forward to the highest positions in commercial and social life. In those countries he is capable of filling the highest positions, but at home in his own country he is uneducated; there alone he is unable to fill important positions. We feel that that is due to the fault of the system of the Government, which has not the proper force to draw out the latent abilities of the Irish, and we come here to-night to appeal to this House for more enlightened treatment; to appeal to them to give our children at home the opportunity to develop the intelligence with which Nature has endowed them.
  It may be said that the Irish language is dead, and that our grievance with regard to it is a sentimental one, but I trust the few quotations I shall read to the House will prove to England that the

  855
  Irish language, which extends back over 1,400 years, is still a living language, and that it would be a loss not only to Ireland, but to the whole world, if such a virile and ancient language should be allowed to pass away. Professor Alfred Nutt, the president of the Folk Law Society, in a letter to Dr. Douglas Hyde, says—

  "This literature can be traced back with certainty for over 1,000 years, inferentially for several centuries further. It has exhibited during the whole of this period characteristics of imagination, presentment, and form alike enduring, significant, and of extreme interest. It contains the life history of the soul of a race, and it can best be comprehended and expounded by means of that race provided they receive the necessary training. The great continental scholars who have done so much for the furtherance of Celtic studies are the first to insist upon the value of living tradition; the first to urge the importance of the instinctive native knowledge and love of Ireland's ancient speech and literature. If Celtic studies are discouraged in Ireland springs of knowledge and right comprehension will be immediately lost."
  Professor Stern says—
  "My opinion in consequence is that it were to be exceedingly regretted if instruction in the Irish language should be excluded from the curriculum of schools in that country."
  Professor Windisch, of the University of Leipsig, says—
  "In Ireland, Irish is the ancient language of the country which is even still spoken by hundreds of thousands, a language in which the spiritual mode of interpretation and expression of the people's forefathers is preserved. It expresses the spiritual peculiarities of the character of the Irish population, and not to cultivate the Irish language means to close up without any necessity a well-spring of the spiritual characteristics of the people. For the Irishman the Irish language must possess a value as a school subject, because it contributes towards the maintenance among Irishmen of their spiritual characteristics."
  Professor Dollin, of the University of Rennes, says—
  "I confess to you that I am absolutely astonished that any one can contest the utility of it. It is certain that the intelligence of people who speak more than one language is singularly developed, and it is only natural that in Ireland one should study Irish in addition to English."
  Professor Zimmer, of the University of Greifswald, says—
  "With regard to the Irish language as a subject of instruction, I know of no other modern language which, regarded purely as a language possesses a higher educational value than modern Irish for a boy who knows English. For thorough education of the mind (i.e., the intellect) Irish stands on a level with
  856
  French and German, in fact it is in many respects superior to them, because it is more characteristic and consequently gives more matter for thought."
  Professor York Powell, of Oxford, says—
  "It would be a thousand pities if a wise and reasonable effort to bring culture to the children through their mother-tongue should be stopped on the ground that it is a waste of time. The discipline and education were the same whether a child learns in Gaelic or English. We want it to learn both and we know by experience in the past that a bilingual child will learn English better and more readily if its own tongue is not tabooed in the early years of its life."
  These are quotations from men of European fame, scholars of the highest reputation, knowing the ancient Celtic language and the modern languages of Europe, who have come over to Ireland and spent months at a time on the western seaboard to acquire there a speaking knowledge of the language. Surely their testimony is worthy of regard. I might quote also Professor Meyer, of Liverpool, a professor of an English university, who says—
  "To refrain from teaching it to Irish youths who talk it as their mother-tongue I must regard as a gross educational blunder. The Irish language well taught I regard as a first rate means of mental training. Why deprive in their education for life and all it means the youth of Ireland of such intimate touch with the literature of their past as they can thus acquire?"
  Professor Holger Pendersen, of Copenhagen, says—
  "I wish to state that the teaching of Irish seems to me to be imperiously commanded by the simple circumstance that one-third of Ireland (in area) is still Irish speaking; for Irish children, even if they know some little-English, cannot acquire a satisfactory intellectual and moral development if they are not taught to read and write their mother-tongue. The neglecting of the mother-tongue of the pupils is always and everywhere a barbarity, and an injustice that should not be allowed in our century."
  Mrs. Hall, speaking of the effect which this study has on Irishmen, says—
  "I have never seen anything to compare with the enthusiasm and earnestness with which the study of the language has been taken up. It appears to exercise both an intellectual and moral influence over the students; many of them are young men engaged all day in various public offices, and young women employed in the General Post Office. Yet after a hard day's work they meet together to study the language with an energy and perseverance which I have never seen applied to any other intellectual pursuit, while on their holidays they find a new and healthful field of recreation in gathering the folk-lore and

  857
  songs, and studying the antiquities of their own parts of the country. Surely every possible facility should be put in the way of such rational and wholesome recreations and pursuits."
  I trust these quotations from scholars of world-wide fame prove that the Irish language, even from a literary point of view alone, is worthy of being saved.
  Now I wish to pass on and prove that the study of language is not alone useful to the people of the particular country, but necessary. Gallant little Wales has preserved its language. It is studied and taught in the schools as necessary for the children. Who can say that Wales has been injured because of the respect they have for their language and the traditions which their language brings home to them? The hon. Member quoted the opinions of Professor Keenan and other educational experts, and also extracts from the reports of the examiners as to the effect of bilingual studies in Wales, and proceeded]: In appealing to the House to-night on behalf of Irish children, we hope the honesty of the English Government will extend to us this reasonable concession, and remove the stigma from the people of Ireland that they are uneducated, and cannot take any position in their own land.
  It has been said by the enemies of the language that there is no widespread feeling for the resuscitation of the language. As a fact, the feeling is as widespread as it can be. The Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland has passed resolution after resolution stating in plain unmistakable terms that for the thorough education of the Irish child bilingualism is absolutely essential. Can anyone in this House say that these men are unable to form a correct judgment as to what is useful to the Irish child? Can anyone say they are influenced by sentiment alone, and that they have not the welfare of the Irish child at heart? Can this House refuse a demand in which no political considerations are concerned? The different county councils of Ireland, representing the people, have practically all passed resolutions claiming that the Irish language is essential to the proper education of the people. For the last quarter of a century repeated resolutions have been passed that Irish should be taught in the schools. There is strong evidence in favour of the national demand
  858
  abroad. The Gaelic League, which started a few years ago to cultivate a knowledge of our dear old mother tongue, has over 200 branches in Ireland, over a dozen in South America, over 50 in North America, and a great number in England and Scotland, and in these branches you have the young men of Ireland who are determined that the language of their forefathers and of their country shall live. As showing the demand for literature on this subject, I may mention that last year there were sold 43,000 copies of the first edition of O'Growney's "Study of Irish," 13,000 of the second edition, 3,500, of the third, 3,000 of the fourth, and 3,000 of the fifth edition, and about 20,000 copies of other books. That shows, even with the present system of education, the results of voluntary effort. The Irish language is a cultivated and literary language, a language which the people are determined shall survive. If I have not already wearied the House I should like to give another quotation. Englishmen are very practical, and they like to see Irishmen who are always regarded as merely sentimental, prove their case with positive facts. I will quote an extract from a reverend clergyman who knows what he is talking about. (The hon. Member then read in Irish the letter referred to.) I hope that this latest quotation will appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  SIR HARRY BULLARD: May I ask the hon. Member to translate the letter he has just read.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: There is no necessity.
  SIR HARRY BULLARD: For the benefit not only of members on this side of the House, but of his own party also.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I should be delighted to translate it, but in an assembly of educated gentlemen I should be sorry to enlighten one who is unable to understand the oldest language in this kingdom, if not the oldest in Europe. I do not wish to import any political bias into this discussion; I have given a quotation in my own language in favour of the claim I am advocating; I have not done it to offend; I thought it my duty to do it; and if my hon. friend does not understand it I can only pity him. Only a few days ago I got a letter from a member of the Flemish Academy. They

  859
  also have a language question. Other countries have a language question, and will continue to have it. This gentleman says:—
  "I have just read your interesting paper concerning the revival of the Irish language. As you perhaps know, we Flemish Nationalists have been struggling for years and with good result to uphold our language; in fact, we have succeeded so far that at present French and Flemish enjoy equal rights in Belgium, and are both used in school and even in the army "
  I am afraid that we in Ireland cannot say that with regard to the Irish language. I trust that the English Government will recognise that it is of no advantage to them, and is a great injury to our country, to deny us the opportunity of educating our people in the only effective way that is open to them. I do not wish to dwell too long upon this matter. I trust I have proved that the Irish language is a literary medium worthy of preservation, and that its use in the teaching of the Irish child is essential. Under these circumstances, I hope that the English Government of to-day will try to remedy the evil of the past and give to the Irish child that facility for education which has hitherto been denied him. I do not wish to touch upon the sentimental aspect of the question. I am addressing Englishmen, who are a very practical people. I ask, What is your present system of education in England? A few days ago a Bill was introduced in this House, which, while it gave a central control, allowed each different district of the country to introduce the system best adapted to its own particular circumstances. Wales is allowed to introduce the Welsh language. Other districts are allowed to teach whatever subjects they think best suited to their requirements. When you in England received, a long time ago, local government, you said that we in Ireland were unfit to receive it; if you did not say it you acted it; but after a long time we have received it. Now we simply ask that you should give to us in Ireland that which you are giving the English people, the right to manage our education in the way we think best suited to the educational development of our people. Surely that is not a great demand. Perhaps I should insult my hon. friend who rose just now if I quote these words, and before I do let me remind him that they are from a
  860
  clergyman of, I was going to say, the ascendency party in Ireland. He says—
  "Britain, with shame confess this land of mine
  First taught thee human knowledge and divine;
  My prelates and my students sent from hence
  Made your sons converts both to God and sense."
  We in Ireland sent our prelates and our missionaries not alone to England, but all over Europe, in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries. Our schools, flourished; they were free not alone to our own people, but to students from, the Continent, and they sent forth scholars all over the world. But to-day we stand—we, the descendants of a people who were ever remarkable for their educational ability; we, the descendants of a people who loved knowledge and learning more than all people on earth—we stand to-day, cursed by a vicious system of misgovernment, declared by you to be illiterate, uneducated, and undeveloped. ["No, no."] Yes, we do. If it is to your advantage or to the advantage of England that Irishmen should remain undeveloped and uneducated, continue the bad and pernicious system which has obtained, in the past. But if you are prepared, to discard politics for once, to do justice for once, to allow Irishmen to develop on Irish lines, to allow Irish intellect to feed on the only food which will develop and improve it, then I say grant to us; to-night the prayer we now offer, and allow the children in Irish-speaking districts to receive their mental training; in the language which alone is capable of drawing out their best faculties. I beg to second the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That in the opinion of this House it is essential in the interests of education that bilingualism, as a system, be introduced into the national schools in districts where Irish is extensively spoken, and that special facilities be afforded for training teachers to meet the demand for the teaching of Irish throughout Ireland."—(Mr. Doogan.)
  MR. RENTOUL: No one can accuse the Irish Nationalist party of want of consistency in their programme—at least, as viewed from this side of the House. They are eminently consistent in asking for things which

  861
  would be for the disadvantage of Ireland. In asking for Home Rule we think they are asking for that which would be for the disadvantage of Ireland. We think also they are asking for that which would be for the disadvantage of Ireland when they ask for a sectarian University. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: The old, old story.] We certainly think it would be for the disadvantage of Ireland that there should be a revival of the Irish language, for which they are asking tonight. That the Irish language should form a class subject in University colleges is a perfectly conceivable and proper thing. As an ancient and practically dead language—["No, no"]—to the antiquarian and scholar it would be of considerable interest and value. Mention has been made of the literature of the Irish language. I understand that in it there are some very beautiful things, but, after all, it is a very small literature. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Have you read it?] As to the preposterous question whether I have read it—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I hope hon. Members will not constantly interrupt.
  MR. RENTOUL: Personally, I have not the slightest objection to hon. Members' interruptions, because they seem to me to indicate that hon. Gentlemen do not like a plain statement of the facts with regard to this highly sentimental and poetic subject. I am told that the literature is a very small one. The same remark applies to the literature of the Hebrews. That undoubtedly contains very beautiful gems, such as might not be found in any other language in the world, but it is certainly a very small literature, and if it was not the language of sacred Scripture it would not be studied seriously as competing with other languages as a means of education or of benefit to any people. Look at the manner in which the most prudent and intelligent people in the world act with regard to their language and literature—I refer to the Jews. They put in the first place, as far as they can, not necessarily English, French, German, or Russian, but the language of the country in which they happen to be, and of the people with whom they associate. When I came into the House the hon. Member the mover of this resolution was urging
  862
  that Sir Patrick Keenan had done something in the way here suggested in connection with Malta, and as far as I could judge the only advantage that he could put forward as springing out of that attempt was that Sir Patrick had been knighted. The first knight I ever knew was my tailor, and when he measured me for my clothes, and I had to address him as "Sir Robert," I learnt then to have, perhaps, less appreciation of the honour of knighthood than I might otherwise have had. That was the sole recommendation, as far as I could see, put forward in connection with the application of the bilingual system in Malta.
  Then the hon. Member spoke of the value of learning this language, and said that some of us would like to extinguish it. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I would like to extinguish Irish as a spoken language in the country. I happen to have spent a great portion of my life in County Donegal, which is very much a bilingual county, and in which Irish is spoken, I suppose, as much as in almost any other county in Ireland. I found that the people there regarded having learnt the Irish language as their mother tongue as a wonderful disadvantage, and they were very anxious to conceal the fact that they knew it. If this were merely a sentimental matter, put forward for the sake of a debate on a Tuesday evening, it probably would not be worth anybody's while to speak, but it would be deplorable if in these days, when we have so much difficulty in getting our children taught two or three languages, such as French and German, without overwork, this subject was added to their task. I am sorry to see that an immense proportion of the examination papers in connection with London and other Universities is absurdly taken up by old French and old German, which are of no practical value whatever, so that people have to learn these old dead-and-gone forms of French and German at the expense of the living language. With regard to the bilingual system, let us look at how the matter has worked out in other places. The two countries in Europe in which the bilingual system prevails to the largest extent are Belgium and Switzerland. Those are the two countries in which, so far as I can

  863
  find, university education stands lowest. Certainly the university education of Switzerland and Belgium cannot compete for a moment with that of Germany or France or Italy. Some time ago I had a conversation in Antwerp with a priest who was examining a class in Flemish, and certainly his testimony was very strongly against the bilingual system. I came across this bilingual system in Brussels. The servants there have to speak French to their masters and mistresses, but they speak very bad French. Coming to Switzerland, I feel a little more on firm ground. The languages there are French and German and a little Italian. It is acknowledged that Swiss French and Swiss German are not good. Very many Swiss people come over here to be educated, and we know that in many schools Swiss teachers are employed because they speak both French and German. It is admitted, I think, that the average Swiss is not a good or safe French scholar. They are not at all equal to the Frenchman in French or the German in German. If I were employing a teacher to teach French and German for a term of two years, I should prefer to employ a Frenchman for one year and a German for the other year, instead of employing a Swiss for two years to teach both languages. The hon. Member opposite, in his peroration, said he thought the Irish language was equally as fine and grand as the language of the ancient Greeks, and that it was as capable of expressing anything as any other language. That was thrilling and delightful, and his peroration shows that he is a master of the English language.
  MR. DOOGAN: Are you referring to me?
  MR. RENTOUL: Yes, I am. If the hon. Member opposite had professed that he was a master of the Irish language I should not have been in the position to contradict him. I was, however, obliged to notice the difference between him and the Leader of his party whilst that long extract in Irish was being read by the hon. Member for West Kerry. I have never seen on the face of the Leader of the Irish party such a wooden look.
  MR. DOOGAN: I do not think the hon. and learned Member opposite is
  864
  drawing a parallel example of what I want. How would you teach English in a school to Irish-speaking pupils when the teacher does not know Irish?
  MR. RENTOUL: I am sorry I cannot answer that question, because I do not follow it. With regard to teaching in the schools, that is a matter with which I will deal later on. I think the meaning seems to be that in order that a child should be taught English well it is necessary that the child must first be taught to speak Irish well.
  MR. DOOGAN: To read Irish.
  MR. RENTOUL: That is a contention which I dispute.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I did not state what the hon. and learned Member has attributed to me. I simply stated that in order to have English taught thoroughly it should be taught through the language which the child knows.
  MR. RENTOUL: I am prepared to dispute that point. I have known many children who have been sent to a foreign country, and who have been taught the foreign language through the foreign language itself, and I find it is the best method that could be applied. I sent a boy to France, and had him taught the language entirely through the French, without the assistance of one solitary word of English. I see occasionally in the Irish newspapers at the present time portions of Irish printed from time to time, and that is evidently done to propagate the Irish language. That does not seem to me to do anything useful, and I am told it is often printed upside down. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no.] At any rate, I am told that that is so, and I am sure that the Leader of the Irish party will not contradict this statement from his own personal knowledge. The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the system in Wales, and he stated that the bilingual system there had produced intelligence which could not have been got by any other educational system. The only instance I ever heard of in connection with the use of the Welsh language in a court of justice was one which occurred some time ago at a Welsh assize, where counsel asked the permission of the presiding judge to address the jury in Welsh.

  865
  The judge in a weak moment permitted it, and counsel said—
  "Gentlemen of the jury,—The Judge is generally an honourable, upright man, but in this particular case he is prejudiced against the prisoner, and therefore you will not listen to a word he says when he comes to address you."
  The result of this case was not desirable. Why does Italy not reintroduce Latin, the ancient language of that country? Why is not ancient Greek revived in Greece and taught by the side of modern Greek? The whole argument in favour of the revival of Erse is base merely on sentiment, though I respect that sentiment. What is wanted in Ireland is something practicable, and the few quotations which the hon. Member opposite gave certainly do not seem to carry him any further than this, that in a university Irish might be kept up as an interesting dead language, or a language practically dead. I have no objection to Irish being taught as a dead language. The great advantage of English is that it is spoken in so many parts of the world. Language, after all, is intended to convey our thoughts in the clearest and most unmistakable manner—except when we are making political speeches. The Irish language will carry us nowhere. It is of no value anywhere outside a few mountainous districts in Ireland. English is admitted now to be the leading language of the world. English is what the Germans would call the Umgangssprache, the language for going round the world. If they have not been as fortunate as we have in being born into other belongings, and in what the hon. Member called "a religion made in Germany," we do not wish to take away everything that is good for them, and we would like to leave them the English language.
  I want to ask the hon. Gentleman who seconded this motion, or one of his friends who may follow me, to answer a question. I wish to know how the teaching of the Irish language is to be done. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland answers seriously this matter, what he has to inform us is, How is this to be done? Does It not involve the getting of a vast number of teachers who are not to be got at present? The hon. Member opposite would be perfectly qualified for filling that position, but I understand that he is one of the rare specimens of that class in Ireland. There would have to be an
  866
  entire change of the whole system of inspectors, and the cost of the Irish national system of teaching would be increased by one-third. It would be the very worst thing the Chief Secretary could do for Ireland to grant this request. I do not think for a moment that hon. Gentlemen opposite are serious in their desire to put the Irish language in competition with the French or German languages. There are several hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am told, who are having their children taught modern languages. I want to know who would think of putting Irish in the place of either French or German in the education of a child? The average child is not able to make headway with more than a couple of spoken languages at the same time. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that there is nothing harder than to get an Irish peasant to confess that Irish is his mother tongue. We want to know how this language will benefit the people of Ireland or their prosperity. We are told that it is not a party question; but we are not going to support this motion on merely sentimental grounds.
  MR. WILLIAM JONESsaid the hon. Member for East Down had spoken as if it was proposed to resuscitate a dead language, but that was not the proposal. On the other hand, this was a very moderate resolution. It was sought to develop the mind of the children through the medium of a language that they already knew. The hon. Member for East Down entirely misunderstood the question before the House. He had stated that Ireland had no literature worth speaking of. If the hon. Member had taken the least trouble to consult the writings of the great European scholars in France, Germany, and Italy, he would have found that their testimony was that at one time the Irish language had not merely a literature, but that it had the richest literature in Europe. He could quote many authorities on the value of the Celtic languages. It was, however, from the practical point of view that he was going to deal with the matter.
  Speaking as a humble student of the Celtic language, and particularly the language and literature of Wales, he would tell the House what had been done

  867
  in Wales in recent years. He believed it was universally acknowledged that no nation had done by self-sacrifice and endeavour more than the Welsh nation towards fostering education during the past generation. What was one of the main elements in the success of their system? Why, that Welsh had been recognised not merely as a means of culture, but a means of instruction. The success was so startling that the chief inspector, who was an English gentleman, said there was a striking growth in all-round excellence, in English especially. Other inspectors told us in their reports that the standard of elementary education was greatly raised by the introduction of Welsh. In our secondary education system it was likewise said by the best authorities that the influence of the study of Welsh was already beginning to tell on the literature of the country. Another leading educationist bore witness that we had gained in every direction by giving Welsh an important place in our whole system, from the elementary classes to the university course. In these days, when commercial education was wanted to enable us to compete with Germans and Americans, what did we find in Wales? Welsh children in the elementary schools and in the splendid intermediate schools, and those who entered the university, learned French and the Romance languages through Welsh much quicker, than through English. Surely that was a practical thing. These languages must be an effective means of culture if foreign languages which were of such use could be learned through them. The reason was this. The vowel system, the sytacztical arrangement, and the genius of the Welsh language was much more akin to the French language than English. The same thing held good in regard to Irish. If Irish children could be taught in their schools by using the language already known to them as their mother tongue they would learn English all the better. After all, that was the main question. They were not seeking by the resolution to do away with English or to de-Anglicise Ireland. What they wanted was to get at the mind of the child for educational purposes wherever that child was to be found. In Wales the teacher could now draw forth and educate the
  868
  mind of the child by means of the tongue known to it. The man who most of all in Europe had emphasised the importance of the mother tongue as a means of culture was Bismarck.
  There was another point in connection with education in Wales to which he desired to call attention. He held in his hand an extract from the latest report on the secondary education schools in Wales. What did the examiner say about the teaching of Welsh in these schools?
  "It is pleasing to state that the work actually submitted to the test of examination was, as a whole, of a very high character. This year was a conspicuous absence of poor papers. … The Welsh composition and the work in grammar were, in every stage, better than in any previous year."
  Of course, the study of Welsh was proving to be a really efficient help to the acquisition of English, and to serve the highest purpose educationally the language itself must be taught pari passu with English. That was exactly what hon. Gentlemen from Ireland asked with regard to Irish. Such a course of education to-day would be better for Ireland and better for this country. Bi-lingual education was the best for developing the literary power and qualities of the child. If they wanted to raise a cultured nation, they must give it the best means of sharpening its intellectual equipment, and Irish was a remarkable instrument for that purpose. Professor Rhys, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, perhaps the best all-round Celtic scholar living, writing to one of the Commissioners during the Viceregal inquiry into the question of the Irish language in intermediate education, said—
  "I am very sorry to learn from Dr. Douglas-Hyde that some educationalists who know nothing about the Irish language and its literature are trying to persuade your Commission to exclude both from Irish education.… Irish is a highly inflected idiom, with an eminently logical syntax, which is likely to be heard a good deal of in the future in connection with the question which the early ethnology of the British Isles has to dispose of. It has a large literature, in which the foundations of a good deal that was developed into the romances of the middle ages are beginning to be recognised.… The difficulty, if there is any, would arise perhaps from the fewness of the texts which have hitherto been edited for school use; but I feel sure that once the subject is recognised by your Commission, able men would be found who will undertake to prepare handy books."

  869
  What was the use of foisting an adventitious growth in the shape of an alien language upon a child who was thinking and speaking in his mother tongue? The system of education in Ireland should train and educate the intelligence without missing to educate the sympathies. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give his most sympathetic attention to this question. Even from the practical point of view, from the point of view of the children to be trained, from the point of view of the teachers who taught, it was worthy of that attention, as such a course was calculated to produce the best and most capable citizens in after life, and to fit them to take their places in the world.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Most of us know little or nothing of the Celtic languages, but I think I may say for everyone here that we are ready to listen to the hon. Member who has just sat down for as long as he likes whenever he is good enough to speak to us on these subjects. He has to-night, as ever, enchanted us with the spell of his eloquence, but it seems odd to me to remember that he began his speech with the observation that he meant to be entirely practical. Throughout the whole of his remarks he has, no doubt, been very practical; he has created a practical effect, yet I think he has invested the subject with something of Celtic glamour. It is my painful duty to approach the subject in the humdrum capacity of a British Minister.
  At the very outset I must draw a sharp distinction between the two questions involved in the matter we are debating to-night. One of these questions is very explicitly set forth in the resolution, but nearly every speaker has glanced at the other question, which is very closely allied to it. The first question is this—"Ought instruction to be given through the medium of Irish to a child who either can only speak Irish, or who speaks a little English, but thinks in Irish?" That is the first question, and the resolution deals principally with that. Well, Sir, I do not claim to be an authority upon what is, after all, a purely educational question, and I prefer to base myself on the
  870
  words of Sir Patrick Keenan, who wrote, so long ago as in 1855—
  "It is hard to conceive any more difficult school exercise than to begin our first alphabet and syllabication, the first attempt at reading, in a language of which we know nothing, and all this without a means of reference to or comparison with a word of our mother tongue "
  And there I pause for one moment to pick up what seemed to me to be a fallacy in the reasoning of my hon. friend the Member for East Down. He said that the best way to teach a child French or German was to send it to a French or German home. Yes, but surely that child would have learned to read his mother-tongue, and would have got over the difficulties of the alphabet and syllabication of its own language? Sir Patrick Keenan says—
  "The real policy of the educationalist would, in my opinion, be to teach Irish grammatically and soundly to the Irish speaking people, and then to teach English through the medium of their national language. If that system be pursued people will soon be better educated than they are, and English will be more generally and purely spoken."
  It is notorious that the Highlanders of Scotland brought up in Gaelic homes do speak very pure English, and they are taught at the outset through the medium, of Gaelic. The words of Sir Patrick Keenan were, I submit, common sense fifty-five years ago, and are common sense still. Indeed, I can speak from my own experience. I was not so very long; ago in a school in a remote district of Ireland, where I found particularly good instruction being given by a young lady to a number of children, and she said that three or four of those could speak no English. I said, "Do you speak Irish?" She said, "No." I asked her, "How do you begin?" Her answer was a winning smile, charming but inarticulate. However, I think it was a complete answer. I believe that is how she relieved the tedium of those children who, on recognising, certain cyphers, were taught to declare by rote that "A cat was on a mat" or that "A fox was in a box—a sorry business at the best, as most of us remember, but lightened in our case by the interest which children take in the familiar, or unusual, predicaments of animals. There has been a note in the Code of the National Board of Education since 1883 advising that Irish-speaking children

  871
  should be instructed in the way suggested by Sir Patrick Keenan, and my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, five years ago, referring to the matter, said—
  "There are districts in Ireland where the national language is the language of the people. Where that is the case it is probably true that the best way to teach the children is to teach them in the language that they naturally speak."
  I adopt that view with the single substitution of certainty for probability. Really, Sir, the matter is not in dispute. I could quote a hostile witness—hostile in the sense that he and many able men are opposed to any unnecessary extension of the bilingual system. Dr. Atkinson said that—
  "These children should be taught Irish: and they would learn it without great difficulty, because they speak it from their childhood. If they speak it, then it would be right to teach them in the mother tongue. It is wrong not to teach them in their mother tongue. If they know Irish, let them be taught in Irish. If the child thinks in Irish, let it be taught in the Irish language."
  That evidence was given only three years ago by a very learned gentleman who is not in favour of the view so eloquently put forward by my hon friend, so that there is no difference of opinion upon this matter. It is not maintained that a system of education which might be a sad necessity in the case of deaf mutes is really proper for those who do not suffer from that infirmity.
  In the revised programme of the Board of Education, drawn up last September and sanctioned by the Irish Government in March, I find:—
  "In schools where there are Irish-speaking pupils the teacher, if acquainted with the language, is advised to use the vernacular, and inspectors are at liberty to use] Irish in conducting school examinations."
  English Members may ask why the Board of Education, holding that opinion, only gave advice. I must explain that there are profound differences in the system of education in Ireland and in this country. For example, neither the Chief Secretary nor any member of the Government has direct control over the Board of Education; and, further, the Board of Education has not direct control over the managers and teachers of the schools. Except by expressing opinion, or by offering advice and helping
  872
  to procure funds, I do not know that any very operative effect can be transmitted either by the Government or by the Board of Education to the managers of schools in Ireland. Hon. Members from England may think that system very absurd, but I must tell them that we are not the only people who have found it necessary to govern Ireland through a system of boards. Nominated boards have always been found useful. Why, even St. Patrick, when he addressed himself to the task of bringing the Brehon laws into line with Christianity, found that he could only effect his purpose by appointing a joint committee to revise them, consisting of three bishops, three Brehons, and three kings; three clerics, three lawyers, and three permanent officials—the very image of a Castle board! [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: They were all Irish.] And there is another difference. In this country we have compulsory education. In Ireland except in sixty-eight towns and townships out of 120, there is no compulsion; it is only optional, and in rural districts there is no machinery of any kind to put compulsion into effect. As a result, out of 900,000 children who ought to be in school in Ireland there are only at present 500,000. We have a right to ask whether more would not attend if the instruction were more congenial, and whether more of those who attended would not learn more English. I know that the size of this problem is not very large. The Census figures are often quoted. The return of those who spoke Irish in 1881 was 885,000. In 1891 it was 642,000. But the force of that argument must be qualified to a certain extent when we reflect upon the great number who emigrated from Ireland, to which the reduction must be probably attributed, and not to a cessation on the part of the people from speaking the language. It is very difficult to get at the truth of the Census returns, and we have been warned that a good deal of pressure would be put on the Irish people to make it appear that they talk nothing else but Irish. I am bound in honesty to say that in the past a great many people thought it a fine thing to say that they knew English and knew no Irish. I should not like to make that statement

  873
  without some evidence to support it. It is better to get at the truth in this matter and not to argue from a priori premises. I quote these words from the official report of an inspector of fisheries—
  "The men we found, on the whole, well clad, but only one could speak good English, and one other man had a few words of English. The children seemed to know no English, although there was a school in the island. The man who was spokesman said if you put one of the bigger girls at the fifth book she could very likely go through it in first-rate style, but beyond the books they dad no English."
  I have very little doubt a child which could get through the fifth book in "first rate style" would proudly inscribe herself as an English scholar in the Census report.
  I submit a further consideration. Compulsion is optional on the part of the local authorities in Ireland, but the local authorities are urging this matter upon all our attention, and as a matter of administrative expediency ought we to resist the demand made by the Irish local authorities in a matter which has been accorded to the Highlands of Scotland and Wales when it is impossible to hope that education will be made compulsory unless we co-operate with the local authorities? Therefore, as to the question of teaching the children who speak English but think in Irish, or who know only Irish, I say, in view of what is done in Scotland and Wales, from an administrative point of view, and also from an educational point of view, in which all the educational experts concur, the question is no longer an open one, and I regard this debate to that extent as being somewhat academical. That question is closed, and I should be slow to believe that anyone would reopen it; and I shall be slow to believe that the Board of Education will neglect any steps that may be necessary in order to secure the acceptance of the advice which it itself gave eighteen years ago, and has explicitly reaffirmed during the last few months with the sanction of the Irish Secretary and the Government.
  I do not think that I need say any more upon this question of teaching Irish-speaking children through the medium of Irish, because I really do not believe that we are in dispute upon that
  874
  matter at all. Where we are in dispute is when we come to more debateable points—the grounds traversed by many of the speakers in this debate—"Ought Irish to be taught in non-Irish-speaking districts?" Well, I will do my best to describe my own view on that matter, which is an educational and literary question rather than a political one. My opinion is identical with that of the National Board of Education. In their revised programme, sanctioned by the Treasury and the Irish Government, I find—
  "In connection with the new scheme the Commissioners sanction, as they sanctioned under the old results system, Irish, French, Latin, mathematics, instrumental music as optional branches that may be taught in all national schools, and taught during the ordinary school hours, provided that the adequacy of the course of instruction in the usual day subjects is not impaired or hampered thereby. But, as the time for secular instruction is limited, it may not be found possible to do that during the ordinary school hours. In such case the Commissioners will be prepared to recognise them as special branches, and pay supplemental fees for the work done outside ordinary school hours."
  Now, that is the position taken up by the National Board of Education. That is my position also. I will not comment upon it myself, but I will invite the attention of those interested to a comment made upon that by one of the Commissioners of National Education, Archbishop Walsh, who is reputed, and I believe justly reputed, to be a great authority upon education. This is what he says—
  "I for my part regard what has been done by the Commissioners in reference to the teaching of Irish as satisfactory enough, at all events for the present. I see that on this matter also people are writing to the newspapers, trying to make out that Irish may not be taught in schools as the programme says it may be taught now. Plainly, what people of that description want is not facilities for the teaching of Irish, but what they want is a grievance, and in this particular matter the occupation of the grievance-monger is rapidly coming to an end."
  I agree with that. I believe that the revised rules of the Board do show a reasonable attempt to meet the wishes expressed upon this matter. But what is practical? We have heard debates on the Irish Estimates. We have had a great increase in the Irish Estimates recently in reference to Irish education. There was £14,000 last year, and £16,000 this year for the training of teachers in

  875
  elementary science, cookery, etc. I should not interpret this resolution as a mandate to the Treasury to stand and deliver more money, and everyone knows that no resolution should be interpreted in that way. In my opinion, if managers and parents mean business, and if the necessary steps are taken to teach through the medium of Irish in the first case, viz., where Irish-speaking children are involved, then, without adding to the expense of education in Ireland, it will be quite possible to teach Irish as a kind of secondary subject in the manner indicated in that portion of the Commissioners' Rules to which I have referred. I am glad to believe that the occupation of the grievance-monger is rapidly coming to an end, and I hold that it would be a grave mistake to give back his occupation by taking any backward step or exhibiting any vacillation upon a question which excites so much interest in Ireland at the present moment.
  I approach the second question from a purely educational standpoint. My right hon. friend and predecessor said in a previous debate that if there were any national desire to see Irish introduced in this way as a secondary subject he would not withstand it. Neither am I prepared to withstand it. There is at present an enthusiasm in Ireland for the study of Irish, and in the interests of education I submit that it would be a mistake not to take advantage of that enthusiasm, because any subject is of value educationally if it is pursued with zeal. Again I cannot dogmatise as an expert in these matters, and I should like to quote the words of an inspector of intermediate education in Ireland. He says—
  "It does not appear that the good results likely to follow from the proper study of Irish are very generally appreciated, notwithstanding all that is constantly being said about the need of bringing the sympathies of the young to bear on the subjects of their study. We all know well that as regards the general round of subjects, the best efforts made in this direction can be only a partial success so long as boys are boys and girls are girls. Hence the great advantage of including in the curriculum one subject which makes a personal appeal even to the youngest Irish students, and supplies them with a motive to put forth their mental powers lovingly and zealously, as doing so towards one subject cannot fail to have a good influence on their mental attitude towards other subjects."
  But consider what a small question this
  876
  is in size, though I believe it is a great one in respect of educational advantage. Only 1,443 children passed in the National schools in Irish last year. Does anyone believe that our own language will become unintelligible in that country? With all the efforts which have been made there has been very little progress. I could give an illustration of the progress which has been made from this same report. There is a phrase, the pronunciation of which I will not attempt to give, but the meaning of which is, "The chest was full of meal at the time of their marriage." These are some of the translations of that sentence given by the children:—"The cup of their happiness was full at the time of their marriage"; "their conversation was filled with sweet honey while they were married"; "they filled their box with fine linen on their marriage"; "the country was full of oats when they were married"; "the cupboard was full of wine at the completion of their marriage"; "the coffin was filled with meal during their marriage"; and, lastly, "the company was filled with surprise at the duration of their marriage." For an Irish child, that is a novel, one might almost say a hill-top novel, view of the marriage tie.
  If that be the progress which has been made, I think my honourable friends may reckon on attending Punches-town races or the horse show without any danger of making a mistake in a bargain owing to unfamiliarity with the language in Ireland. The only difficulty, I think, in dealing with this question is to keep politics out of it. I have not altogether succeeded in doing so myself, because a moment or two back I let fall the remark that it was difficult to refuse to Ireland that which we have accorded to Scotland and Wales. But need we dread any dire political consequences even from the spread of what is called "the Celtic Renaissance"? The hon. Member for Waterford will for give me for reminding him that the leaders of that movement are quite impartial in the attentions they pay, whether to the Chief Secretary or to the leader of the Irish Nationalist party. In a very interesting publication of theirs I find this statement by one of the standard-bearers of the Celtic Renaissance—
  "Politics is not nationality, and the nineteenth century has been for Ireland mainly a century of humbug."

  877
  He writes elsewhere that—
  "Ireland during the last century has in many vital matters played the fool."
  Some of the standard-bearers of the Celtic Renaissance may believe that English will shortly be unintelligible in Ireland, but nobody else does. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, speaking last year, said that the Irish were not so far advanced in lunacy as that. The bread and butter argument, does come in, and nobody means to throw away such a good industrial and commercial asset as the English language. What the Irish want is, as I have said, that the children who cannot be taught through English should be taught through Irish, and that Irish should be taught in the schools as a special subject which is calculated to elicit those intellectual qualities which everybody must allow to Irish children. That is the practical question. Is the study of Irish, even of ancient Irish history, or even, if you will, of ancient Irish legend, a good or a bad subject for eliciting these qualities? I happen to think that it is a good subject, and I do not believe that the political consequences would be very harmful. Suppose they do go back a little further in history. I have sometimes ventured to think it a pity that all Irish history, even the rebel history of Mitchell, seems to begin with the Treaty of Limerick, about 1690. Yet centuries before that the Irish illuminated the "Book of Kells" and won the battle of Clontarf. If Irish children read some of the publications of the Celtic Renaissance I venture to say that they will find that the Ireland long before what hon. Members call "the pernicious influence of British rule" was not as totally different from the Ireland of to-day as they have been led to believe. I do not know whether I may refer to a poem. The hon. Member who preceded me did so, and I wish that I could repeat it with the same charm. It is a very interesting poetical account given of a visit paid to Ireland by a king of Northumbria, a little before the time of the Venerable Bede. It says—
  "I found in Ulster, from hill to glen,
  Hardy warriors, resolute men."
  Those are what we find there still.
  "I found in Leinster nourishing pastures."
  I hope to use that some day in a debate upon grass-lands.
  "I found in Meath's fair principality
  Virtue, vigour, and hospitality."
  878
  I have admired the vigour of Meath in the hunting field, and I have enjoyed its hospitality. And, lastly—
  "I also found in Armagh the splendid Meekness, wisdom, and prudence blended."
  Everybody will recognise in that a portrait painted in anticipation of my right hon. and gallant friend the Member for North Armagh. Now, Sir, are the consequences of studying the literature of the Celtic Renaissance so very desperate? If the result of such instruction should be that in fifty or a hundred years—though that is a sanguine forecast—Irish lads were to abandon the practice of singing upon certain anniversaries spirited ditties which enjoin the propriety of kicking the Crown or the Pope into this or that river, and to prefer instead to recite some of the publications of the Celtic Renaissance; for instance—
  "Oh, where, Kincora, is Brian the great,
  Where is the Beauty that once was thine,
  Where are the Princes and nobles that sate
  To feast in thine halls and drink the red wine?
  Where, oh, Kincora?"
  For the life of me I cannot see that such a change in the national taste for ballads would be politically deleterious. A belief in legendary grandeur does not—witness the Scots—impair the utilitarian aptitudes of a race. You would not make a Scotsman into a better engineer by confiscating his heirlooms. The Irish language is an heirloom of the Irish. Its usefulness may not be immediately obvious; but that is true of most heirloom and household gods. And yet a tutelary reverence for household gods has often nerved heart and hand for purely utilitarian contests. There is no heresy to the Union in permitting to Ireland that which we promote in Scotland and in Wales; on the contrary, it is an article of the Unionist creed that within the ambit of the Empire there shall be room for the co-operation of races, maintaining each a memory of its own past as a point of departure for converging assaults on the problems of the future. Therefore I really see no objection to the motion at all.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I have not risen with any kind of desire to continue this discussion, but I have risen simply for the purpose of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary upon his exceedingly witty and charming speech. It is one of the most delightful speeches I have ever listened

  879
  to in this House. What I desire chiefly to congratulate him upon is that underneath the lightness of touch and the wit of his speech there was evident to the House a sincere sympathy with the object we have in view. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted the resolution which has been proposed by us, and I cannot help feeling that the movement in favour of which we have spoken here to-night will gain immeasurably by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. If there was any danger of the National Board of Education halting upon the road in which they have embarked in this matter, I feel sure that the courageous words of the right hon. Gentleman will encourage them in following out the course they have entered upon, and it will enable Irish to be taught in school hours in the ordinary districts of Ireland, thus introducing the system of bilingual teaching into those districts where Irish is the house language of the people. Although I admit that the right hon. Gentleman is justified in saying that this resolution cannot be held to be in the nature of a mandate to the Treasury to provide additional funds, at the same time he must recognise that it would be impossible to carry out the good intentions he has enunciated, and fulfil the policy he has approved, unless, in the words of the resolution, in the future "special facilities be afforded for training teachers to meet the demand for the teaching of Irish throughout Ireland." It would be wrong for me to say anything further than this, and I am heartily glad that the opportunity has been afforded me of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman not only upon his rhetorical triumph, but also upon the general sympathy with our object he has shown in his speech, which I am sure will be received in Ireland with feelings of great gratification.

  WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: If the circumstances of a country were such that a Government could with propriety give religious instruction to a people, we have it on the authority of Lord Macaulay and Bishop Warburton that the religion that ought to be taught should, without doubt, be that of the majority, and on behalf of
  880
  the vast majority of Welsh people of the Principality I beg to move the resolution standing in my name. I maintain that no Church can justify its position as an Established Church unless it is the Church of the majority. As a Welshman, and as a representative of a Welsh constituency, I know perfectly well that the Established Church in Wales at the present time is not in any shape or form the national Church of the country. If we Welshmen had our way, this question of Disestablishment would be settled on a fair and equitable basis before many months were over. And it is, perhaps, because hitherto Welshmen have not insisted upon having their share in the attention of Government and Parliament, which they ought to have had, that this question has remained so long unsettled. I take it that no man with any fairness would desire that any church should be supported by an unwilling population, and I can conceive-no position more detrimental to any church or to any religion than that it should be dependent for its existence upon conditions of that sort, and I beg formally to move my Amendment.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES: On national and religious-grounds, I beg to second this motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, as the Church of England in Wales has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people, and ministers to only a small minority of the population, its continuance as an Established Church in the Principality is an anomaly and an injustice which ought no longer to exist."—(Mr. Osmond Williams.)
  MR. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman who moved this motion stated that he was surprised that this question had received so little attention from Parliament during the last few years. I had the honour of sitting in the Parliament of 1892 when, I believe, we devoted something like three of four weeks to discussing this question, and now the hon. Gentleman opposite is apparently under the impression that three or four minutes will suffice—
  It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve of the clock.

The Lord Bishop of Durham took the Oath.
The Lord Sudley (E. Arran), sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

West Surrey Water.

Caledonian Railway.

Kettering Urban District Water.

Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers).

Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Water.

Richmond Gas.

Stroud Gas.

North-Eastern Railway.

Also the Certificates that the further proofs required by the Standing Orders Committee in respect of the following Bill have been given:—
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) [H.L.].
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
London County Council (General Powers).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for additional provision; of the promoters of the City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway Bill; together with proposed Amendments and clause annexed thereto; read and referred to the Examiners.
  BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  ELLAND GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  DOVER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
GLASGOW AND RENFREW DISTRICT RAILWAY TRANSFER BILL.
  HORLEY DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    LONG EATON GAS BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
    TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WELLS CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  DUBLIN ST. JAMES' GATE BREWERY TRAMWAYS BILL.
    TENDRING HUNDRED WATER BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    CHESTERFIELD IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
    RODGERS' PATENT BILL [H.L.].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY BILL.

    BURTON-UPON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL.
    DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    DUBLIN (EQUALISATION OF RATES) BILL.
    GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    IRISH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BILL.
    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (AMENDMENT OF ACTS) BILL.
    PEMBROKE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (COUNTY OF DUBLIN) BILL.
    SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL.
    TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [H.L.]
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.].
    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.].
    Read 2a (according to order).

MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons—
I. That the provisions of—

The Loch Leven Water Power Order

are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order.
II. That—

The Edinburgh Corporation Order,

The Greenock Corporation Order, and

The Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Order,

may proceed as Provisional Orders.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 85.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA, No. 3 (1901).
  Correspondence relating to the murder of Mr. Jenner and the Ogaden Punitive Expedition.
  COLONIES.
  Miscellaneous: No. 16. Selections from Colonial Medical Reports for 1898 and 1899.
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Militia Training Return, 1900.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series—
  No. 2603. Morocco (Tangier and district, for the year 1899).
  No. 2604. Portugal (Goa, for the year 1900).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRISONS (RULES FOR LOCAL PRISONS).
  Draft of rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prison Act, 1898—

  I. With regard to the dietary of convicts.

  II. With regard to the dietary of prisoners.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  Minute sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for the county of Cardigan. First minute.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report there of to be received on Friday, the 14th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 86.)
  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Friday, the 14th of June next.
NEW BILL.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts (in relation to Appeals and Divisional Courts) was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 87.)
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday, the 10th of June next.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  FOREIGN POST OFFICES IN TURKEY.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to ask my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is in a position to make any statement with reference to the dispute with the Porte in connection with the foreign post offices, and whether, in the event of an arrangement being arrived at, he will insist upon the same privileges being accorded to this country as are already enjoyed by other Powers. I have no intention of detaining the House on this question, for I have several times brought before the notice of the Foreign Secretary the case of Salonica, where the British mercantile community are placed at great disadvantage as compared with other foreigners in consequence of the difficulty experienced in regard to their post offices. In view of the recent autocratic and unexpected conduct of the Turkish Government with regard to this matter it is plain that a favourable opportunity has occurred for settling an old question, and I trust the noble Marquess will be able to give me some assurance on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The matter to which my noble friend has referred is engaging the earnest attention of the Powers concerned. His Majesty's Government are fully determined to insist upon sufficient reparation for the conduct of the Turkish officials, and upon a formal and satisfactory undertaking in regard to the future. We shall not regard any arrangement as satisfactory which fails to give to this country, in respect of postal facilities, a position equal to that enjoyed by other Powers.

  CHINA AND THE POWERS—PRESENT POSITION.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to our position and that of the other Powers in China, and

  727
  as to the progress of the negotiations with the Government in the country. For the second time I rise to ask an important question with regard to foreign affairs on the eve of a holiday. I think I may perhaps congratulate the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the fact that at all events on this occasion his conduct will not be called in question in another place on account of answers being given here instead of there, for I understand that already a question has been asked elsewhere on this subject, and been answered at some length. On this occasion I have not put what my noble friend called a series of conundrums to him, but I have asked him a general question on the subject of our position in China. In particular, I wish to know how far the Powers who are acting in concert in China have advanced towards the settlement of the question of the indemnity—a question which is important as bearing on the future of China. We have seen in the papers, though we hardly know whether those statements are authentic or not, that very large sums indeed have been claimed by various Powers. We have heard that this country has modified its claim, having regard to the future position of China. I venture to say that if the Powers are trying to get from China the utmost that China can give they may be doing a very ill turn to the future good government of that country. If severe or excessive terms are pressed there will be nothing to satisfy any claims that may have to be made in consequence of renewed attacks on property or person which may occur in the future; for I am afraid it can hardly be expected that the settlement will be so satisfactory that in future no claims of that sort can arise. With regard to the sources of revenue on which the indemnity might be secured, I would point out that the amount to be raised from maritime customs is a very important matter in relation to our trade and the trade of other nations. It is important, therefore, that this should be settled on a thoroughly safe and satisfactory basis, without crushing and overwhelming China. The noble Marquess referred to that tax which we know under the name of likin—a very important tax as affecting
  728
  the interior government of China. He pointed out the difficulties there would be with regard to it, and yet everybody knows that likin, as it is at present levied, is a great impediment to free commerce in that country.
  I should like to know whether the Powers have considered what should be done with regard to furnishing proper funds to the provinces, as well as to the Imperial Government, the former being in many points almost independent of the Imperial Government. The governors of the provinces, especially those of the Yang-tzse, have done important work in, supporting law and order. Two of them are reputed to be men of advanced views who have advocated reforms in their provinces. I should like to know whether they have exercised this good influence, and, if so, whether the Powers have given them material support as against the exactions which may have been forced upon them by the Imperial Government. It seems most desirable that such independent Viceroys should be encouraged, and if possible that their revenues should be put upon an independent footing, so that they should not be obliged, in order to find ways and means, to resort to methods which are quite foreign to us in this country.
  Then, there is another point. The Powers in China have never been in a condition of actual warfare with China. No war has been declared, but there have been, as we know, serious actions, and from time to time we have read of the probabilities of attacks in distant provinces; by some if not all the Powers, and to that is attributed to a great extent the extreme slowness in getting law and order restored in that country. I should like to know whether there are likely to be many expeditions—which I presume are punitive expeditions—into the distant provinces in the interior, and whether we may hope that in a short time there will be a Government established that shall once more take charge of law and order in the country. Then there is the question of the railways. First of all there was the Tien-tsin incident, where for some time the sentries of Russia and of this country were close to each other, and the greatest anxiety prevailed as to what might occur. Negotia

  729
  tions have since taken place with St. Petersburg; and I should like to hear whether the Government are still satisfied with the position of affairs there. It has been said that there have been difficulties, that the Russian Government have been very busy in using some of the land claimed by the English company on the opposite side of the Pei-ho, and that they have occupied part of the land opposite the English settlement belonging to the Government. That may be an exaggerated statement, but we would like to know how far the negotiations have been successful.
  Next there is the question of the Northern Railway north of the Great Wall. In this case English interests under special agreements were accepted on the general understanding that Russian influence with regard to the railroads should be paramount in that district, while our interest should be paramount in the Yang-tzse Valley. I understand the arrangements were that these railroads should remain as Chinese lines under the control of the Government of China, and there should be no power to mortgage them to any non-Chinese Power. It is known, however, that the Russian Government for military purposes have, as is believed, occupied this line; and I would be glad to know whether there has been any satisfactory conclusion of that occupation, or whether assurances with which the Government are satisfied have been given. There is also the question of Niu-chwang, a place in which we have large interests, larger than any other country. The Russian Government occupied in a civil and military way that city, and I believe they gave assurances that it was of a temporary kind only. I would be glad to know whether any change has taken place, and whether the Government are still satisfied with the position there. The same may be said with reference to Manchuria. Accounts have lately appeared in the press about the occupation by Russia of two islands 100 miles from Port Arthur, or some protest on their part against our ships touching there, and I would like to have some explanation of the situation. Another incident which has caused some anxiety was the German bridge incident, where some guards on a German bridge fired
  730
  on a tug-boat carrying British colours. I hope to hear that the incident has been exaggerated, and that no serious consequences will arise between us and Germany. I should like to obtain some information with reference to the action of the Korean Government in removing Mr. Brown, an English subject, who for a long time had the management of the Customs in that country.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I recognise the right of the noble Earl to ask me for a further instalment of the information which I gave him before the Easter holidays with regard to the important matters on which he has touched. I think I can tell him, to begin with, that, although the progress of these negotiations has not been particularly rapid, we are, in my estimation, very considerably nearer than we were to that termination of our entanglement in China which I am sure he desires to arrive at as earnestly as we do. We have remained in that country in order to endeavour to obtain compliance with the terms of the Joint Note which was handed to the Government of China by the representatives of the Powers at Peking. The noble Earl has touched on some of the conditions which were enumerated in that Note. He did not mention in particular one to which I referred when I last addressed your Lordships—the question of punishments. I shall not, therefore, take up the time of the House by referring to the point except for the purpose of saying, with regard to the punishment of the principal offenders, a list of whom I gave to the House, that the matter stands very much where it did when I made my observations, with this difference, that the execution or compulsory suicide of six of these persons has been obtained, and not of five as I then stated. The remainder have been degraded or banished, except in the case of two or three, who are reported to have died. There remains another class of culprits whose punishment we desire very much to secure. I mean the persons who are responsible for some of the worst atrocities committed in the provinces of China. The representatives at Peking lave demanded the punishment of a number of these. The number for

  731
  whose death, banishment, or degradation we have asked is 107. We have not yet received a reply to the Note containing that demand, but we shall press for reasonable satisfaction in regard to the matter. There is another form of punishment which sounds somewhat grotesque in English ears, but it is one to which I understand very great importance is attached by all those who are familiar with the conditions of life in China. It appears that every young Chinaman aspires to enter the Civil Service of his country in some capacity or other, however humble, and one of the severest punishments which can be inflicted on a district is temporarily to interrupt what I may call the Civil Service examinations, which are held at all the important centres of population. The suspension of these examinations has been demanded for five years in several important towns. I have seen complaints made as to the insufficiency of the retribution which we have been able to obtain. I am bound to confess that in some respects it does seem to me to fall short of what we might have desired. But I should like to put it to your Lordships that the mere exaction of a number of death sentences is not the only form of deterrent punishment which can be inflicted upon the people of China, or upon that part of the Chinese community which was concerned in these events. For really deterrent and exemplary punishment we may look to the protracted occupation of the capital, to the permanent retention of Legation guards and military ports, and to the large indemnities which the Powers are requiring. We, at any rate, are not prepared to keep our troops an indefinite time in China, or to postpone for an indefinite time the moment when something like normal conditions will be restored in that country, merely for the purpose of adding to the tale of heads which will be counted when our demands are complied with.
  I come now to the indemnities, which are probably the most important matter dealt with in these negotiations. We have arrived at this stage—that the Powers have now been able to put in a claim in which the total amount of the indemnities demanded by them—demanded, I mean, both for public and
  732
  for private purposes—is set out. That total has been freely stated in the newspapers, and it is certainly very large. It reaches no less than 450,000,000 taels. The Powers have received from the Chinese Government a reply to that demand, a reply in which, while reference is made to the magnitude of the sum asked for, no positive statement of inability to pay is put forward. On the other hand, offers are characteristically made for a settlement, which would fall considerably short of satisfying so large a demand as that I have described. The discussion of that matter is still in progress. I have said in this House and elsewhere that His Majesty's Government were in favour of moderation in respect of these demands. But at the same time, if the representatives of the other Powers concerned have satisfied themselves, both as to the propriety of these claims and as to the ability of China to meet them, it is not possible for us to take upon ourselves to mitigate the total of the claim. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that it is not only by mere reduction of the total amount that indulgent treatment can be accorded to the Chinese Government. There are other ways of facilitating the payment of the indemnities which are open to us, and of those I will say a word in a moment.
  In compliance with the noble Earl's request I may, perhaps, describe briefly the attitude which we desire to take up in regard to this part of the negotiations. We earnestly desire, if possible, to avoid any arrangement under which China might be compelled to contract separate obligations with individual Powers—separate obligations, I mean, secured by special assignments of Chinese revenues or of Chinese territory. I need not dwell on the objections to such a course. We earnestly hope that the Powers will continue to act to get he; and that, as they have dealt with other problems by means of joint action, so in this financial settlement they will be content to base their demands on common principles, to satisfy them from common sources, to accept securities which shall be common to them all, and to arrange that if China should make any default the necessary payment should be enforced by common action.

  733
  With regard to the mode in which China might satisfy these claims, I suppose that from our point of view, the ideal arrangement would be that China should herself obtain the money, pay it us, and close the transaction. But it is perfectly clear that the unassisted credit of China would not enable her to go into the market and procure a sum anything like that which the Powers now demand of her. We must therefore dismiss altogether the idea of an unguaranteed Chinese loan. It has been suggested that the case is one in which a Chinese loan might be collectively guaranteed by the Powers concerned. That is not a proposal which at all commends itself to His Majesty's Government. We do not think that we should be justified in coming to Parliament and asking them to pledge the credit of this country for the purpose of facilitating the payment of these vast indemnities upon easy terms—indemnities of which, probably, not more than one-ninth represents the sum to which the country would itself be entitled. We are obliged to regard this matter as one of business; and that does not seem to us at all a business-like proposal. Besides, I am told by those whose acquaintance with these subjects is much greater than any to which I can pretend, that our experience of joint guarantees in the past has shown that they are extremely inconvenient arrangements from a political and international point of view.
  The plan which we have ventured to suggest for the consideration of the Powers concerned is this. We propose that China should pay to the Powers concerned bonds representing the share due to each of those Powers, and that those bonds should be extinguished in a term of years by payment of principal and interest; for the service of those bonds we think that it should be possible to ear-mark certain sources of Chinese revenue, the yield of which might be paid at frequent intervals to a board or council whose business it would be to receive the money and distribute it to the creditor-Powers. Such a board would have to be constituted with the consent of the Powers concerned; it would, of course, be merely a receiving and distributing board, and would not be directly concerned in the imposition or
  734
  collection of Chinese taxes. It seems to us that the advantage of such an arrangement would be this—that if China should happen to make default, she would make default not to any one Power but to the Powers collectively, as represented by the board; and we should hope that the Powers would be induced to agree in that case, if action were necessary in order to compel payment, that the action should be joint and concerted action, and not the action of individual Powers. It is clear that if in pursuance of such a plan as this we were to accept payment from China in bonds at their face value, and also if we were able to make some arrangement, which His Majesty's Government would be prepared to entertain favourably, for not enforcing the full amount of these annual payments at once—it is clear that in that case we should very greatly improve the position of China and render it far easier for her to meet our claims than if she were driven to the expedient of a loan.
  As to the sources from which the necessary revenues might be provided, I expressed in March our strong objection to a large increase of the Imperial maritime customs. We remain of that opinion. Your Lordships know how preponderant is our share in the commerce and in the carrying-trade of China; and we feel that, it being our duty to watch over the interests of British trade in that part of the world, we should not be justified in allowing British trade to be made a milch-cow for the purpose of facilitating the payment of these large indemnities. We are ready to agree to a revision of the duties which would bring them up to a full 5 per cent. ad valorem; but we hold that the larger increase which has been suggested in certain quarters could be agreed to by us only as part of an arrangement which would secure to the commerce of this country and of other countries as well countervailing facilities and advantages which would fully compensate it for the additional burdens to which it would become liable. Such an arrangement might conveniently be made when we come to give effect to Article 11 of the Joint Note. That is the article under which the Chinese Government has undertaken to "negotiate regarding

  735
  Amendments in the Treaties of Commerce and Navigation which are considered useful by the Powers and also regarding other subjects connected with commercial relations with the object of facilitating them." When the time comes for those negotiations, if they progress satisfactorily, we shall be perfectly ready to discuss the question of a further increase of the Imperial maritime customs. But for the present purpose, and while the reforms indicated in Article 11, which will necessarily take a very long time to elaborate, are still remote from us, we cannot agree to anything above the 5 per cent. of which I have spoken.
  Then, closely connected with this question of indemnities is the question of the withdrawal of our troops from China. We desire to reduce as soon as we possibly can the large force which, at considerable inconvenience, we have kept in that country for some time past; and we have come to the conclusion, after discussing the matter with the Governments of the other Powers, that the time has come when some reduction may at once be made; 3,300 troops have accordingly been already placed under orders and will leave China immediately. But that is only a beginning. We expect that, as the season progresses, we shall be able gradually to make further reductions, and to leave in China only such a force as would be necessary to ensure good order during what I may call the period of transition—that is, before we are able to reduce our garrison to the bare number required for the legation guards and for the posts which are to hold the country between Peking and the sea.
  The noble Earl referred to the question of Tientsin, and the events which have occurred there. I was able to describe to your Lordships the circumstances under which, owing, I think I may say, to the good sense and moderation exhibited on both sides, we were extricated from a situation which had at one moment become extremely acute. How acute it had become your Lordships will understand when I tell you that at a particular moment two Russian sentries and two British sentries actually had their feet on the same sleeper of the railway line. The reasonable settlement of that incident always seemed to me very
  736
  satisfactory, because it holds out hopes that similar difficulties—and difficulties of that kind are apt to occur in cases of joint occupation—will be dealt with with similar moderation and good sense. What are the facts with regard to the Tientsin concession? It is an area of considerable extent, which I believe covers about a square mile. It stretches along the Pei-ho river, and abuts upon the railway station. This area was claimed by the Russian military authorities at first by the right of military conquest. We subsequently heard that it had been conveyed to them by an instrument signed by Li Hung Chang. Without at all attempting to discuss the history or the validity of the concession as a whole, one thing is, I think, perfectly clear, and I do not think that it is disputed by the Russian Government—and that is that this concession and, indeed, all concessions of the kind, are made subject to any pre-existing rights the existence of which can be satisfactorily proved. We believe that, within this area there are plots which had become the property of the Chinese railway administration prior to the Russian occupation. It was on one of these plots that this dispute with regard to the siding arose; and in reply to the question of the noble Earl, I have to say that within the last few days we have heard that at another point within the concession the Russian troops have been again asserting rights of ownership in a manner which the British military authorities do not consider they are entitled to. We have represented the matter to the Government of Russia, and we have not yet received a reply. But we hold, of course, that if one side is free to resume these exhibitions of activity similar freedom of action may reasonably be demanded by the other side. The case, however, seems to be eminently one for careful local investigation; and I hope that, now that the state of the negotiations appears to hold out some prospect of a diminution of the pressure which has existed, we may be able to obtain an investigation of that kind. Your Lordships will recollect that it was distinctly stated to us by Count Lamsdorff that when the troops were withdrawn from the railway siding, all questions of title and proprietary rights

  737
  were to be reserved for examination between the two Governments. Such an examination, we think, should take place, and we are perfectly ready to make it in a just and equitable spirit. With regard to the Northern Railway, to which the noble Earl referred, the position remains unchanged. The intramural part was handed by the Russians to Count von Waldersee and by the Count to us. The extramural part is still in the hands of the Russian military authorities, who have from the first stated that they were using it temporarily and for military purposes only. I hope before long to be able to lay Papers on the Table with reference to this question.
  Then the noble Earl said something with regard to punitive expeditions. There was a rumour the other day that Count von Waldersee was about to undertake [military operations on a large scale at some distance from Peking, and that the co-operation of the allied forces was desired. We were not informed of the scope of those operations, but we should certainly have been extremely careful, particularly at a moment when we were endeavouring to reduce the strength of our forces in China, how we allowed ourselves to become entangled in any military movement in the remoter parts of the province. But it has turned out, on further inquiry, that no necessity for those operations was found to exist, and therefore, so far as that matter is concerned, there is no question of a punitive expedition in which we would take part. I think I may assure the noble Earl that from the first we have made no secret of our objection to be drawn into any operations remote from Peking and the neighbourhood of that city. I believe that this is not peculiar to ourselves. I believe that that feeling was shared by other Powers, who desired to see the moment arrive when they could withdraw the forces now occupying northern China, or at any rate largely reduce them.
  The next point to which the noble Earl referred was the question of the tug which was fired at by some German troops on the Pei-ho River. When inquiry had been made we learnt that the officer in command of the German troops had expressed his regret for what occurred, and had given an undertaking that in
  738
  a similar case the use of fire-arms would not be again permitted. I hope we may consider that matter at an end. But our information at present is not very full, and we await further particulars.
  The noble Earl also asked me what I could tell him with regard to events that happened at the Elliott and Blonde islands. What happened was this. A British man-of-war went to these islands in pursuit of pirates. The Russian admiral on the station—I wish it to be understood that it was a Russian admiral and not the Russian Government—interposed. He made a protest, and attempted to warn off our ship. We were perfectly aware that under our treaty rights we were permitted to repair to these islands for a purpose of this sort, and we therefore instructed the naval authorities in northern China to disregard the protest; that is how the matter stands.
  My Lords, in regard to Manchuria, I think the noble Earl has watched the interesting communications which are made from time to time to the press, and he is probably as well aware as I am of the state of things. I will read to him a translation of a passage which appeared in the Messenger Officiel at St. Petersburg, on 6th April, which runs thus—
  "So far as the complete and definite restitution of this region"—that is, Manchuria—"to China is concerned, it is obvious that it can only be carried out after a normal state of things has been re-established in the Chinese Empire, and when a central and independent Government has been established in the capital, sufficiently strong to guarantee Russia against the renewal of the disorders of last year."
  The Russians remain in possession of Manchuria, and the position has not altered since that publication was made.
  The only other point to which the noble Earl referred concerned the two Viceroys of the southern provinces. As to that, I may say that we continue to entertain for those two distinguished men feelings of very high appreciation. We have on more than one occasion been able to obtain an expression of their views on important matters, and we have attached to those expressions of opinion the weight to which they were entitled. I do not think that the noble Earl will expect me to tell him what the advice was or how far it was followed. It is clearly desirable to be a little circumspect in publishing to

  739
  the world the opinions entertained by high Chinese functionaries, but we certainly shall continue to receive any advice from them gratefully, and we regard them as an important influence for good in that part of China which is under their government. With regard to support, I think I am right in saying that on one occasion material support was offered to them; but we were then assured that at that time they did not incur any personal danger, and it was not thought necessary to take any steps for their protection. I think I have noticed all the topics to which the noble Earl alluded; and I hope I have said enough to show him that something, at all events, has been accomplished in the direction of obtaining a settlement of these different questions; I earnestly trust that when the matter is again brought up in your Lordships' House, as no doubt it will be, your Lordships will find that we have not been unmindful of British interests, and that some further progress has been made in arriving at the end which we all so much desire.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I rise for the purpose of presenting a Bill for the better prevention of corruption. It is a measure which deals with the same subject as that originally brought forward by the late Lord Russell of Killowen, which was followed by another brought in by the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone. There is a general agreement that something should be done to check corruption, but that Bill went too far, and its arrangements were too complex. I could not, therefore, recommend the Government to accept that measure. Since last year, however, I have had full communication with my noble and learned friend, who is now satisfied that a much simpler and shorter form of legislation will achieve the desired object. The Bill which I present to your Lordships provides that—
  "(1) If any person—(a) being an agent, corruptly and without the knowledge of his principal, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in relation
  740
  to his principal's business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's business; or (b) corruptly gives or offers any such gift or consideration to any agent; or knowingly gives to any agent any receipt, account, or other document in respect of which the principal is interested, which contains any statement which is false or erroneous, or defective in any important particular, and which to his knowledge is intended to mislead the principal, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one year, or to a fine not exceeding £500."
  I believe that will effect, if not everything, at any rate a very great proportion of what is sought to be obtained by the more cumbrous, and, as I think, unworkable Bill which has been introduced in each of the last two sessions. It is a section which I and my noble friend the Lord Chief Justice are agreed will effect a very great improvement in the law. There are many trifling gifts, such as gifts to railway porters and the like, which were not within the ambit of the Bill, but the effort to keep them out produced a confused section which I confess I have not been able quite to understand. The object of the section is plain enough, but the language of it is such as to make it impossible to say that it would protect a person who made a gift to a railway porter from being liable to prosecution and a fine. That was felt to be a section which rendered the Bill ridiculous, and made it impossible to pass it, inasmuch as it was possible under that section for certain persons to take proceedings against anyone who had made a trifling gift of this character. One of the difficulties one has to deal with in a subject of this sort is the creation of a class of persons—I ought not to say creation, because I am sorry to say they exist in very considerable numbers already, but the creating for them of a new field of activity—I mean blackmailers. No one who is not concerned with the administration of justice has any idea of the extent to which that offence prevails. One reason for its not being so extensively known is that people have no conception of the degree to which a threat of proceedings will induce persons, owing to the timorous nature of mankind in respect to charges being made against them, to give way to the blackmailer, and, once they have become

  741
  victims, they struggle in vain against their persecutions. The Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a first time deals with that question. No one in his senses would suppose that it would be right to proceed in regard to such trifling sums as I have suggested, but the language of a statute if it is general must be applied, and we cannot avoid it directly. The mode in which this Bill tries to avoid such a possibility is by allowing no proceedings to be taken except with the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. My noble and learned friend, whose long and distinguished career as Attorney General enables him to speak with authority on such a matter, has assured me that he is strongly of opinion that there will de no difficulty in asking the Attorney General to deal with such questions. The Bill contains only these two sections, and I believe that, if your Lordships are good enough to pass it, there may be a chance of something being done in this very necessary region of amendment of the law even before the present session closes.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: It may be convenient that I should state at once the course I propose to take. Your Lordships will remember that, in moving the Second Reading of my Bill, I stated that I was extremely anxious that the subject should be taken up by His Majesty's Government, for I am well aware that such an alteration of the law ought not to be made except with the sanction and upon the authority of the Government of the day. As your Lordships know, I was not responsible for the drafting of the Bill. I do not by that observation mean to cast any reflection upon the very learned Gentleman who drafted it, and least of all upon my predecessor, the great Lord Russell of Killowen, or on Sir Edward Fry, who, no doubt, gave him great assistance. The Bill, as I introduced it, had the sanction of a Committee of your Lordships' House, and I believe that very great labour was bestowed upon it. But since it was read a second time I have received a great many communications, and criticisms of a friendly character have been addressed to me by men of business who are in no way opposed to the principle
  742
  of the Bill. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, the Bill as drafted proceeded on these lines—that it dealt with, I may say, nearly every transaction in which commission is paid, a gift or a promise made, but attempted to exclude such transactions as have been referred to by the Lord Chancellor, but it was found exceedingly difficult to frame a clause of exemption so as to carry out exactly the object in view. By the courtesy of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I have seen the draft of his Bill, and I am satisfied that a very large percentage of the transactions which it is desired to stop would be hit by the Bill. I recognise that it is most desirable, in connection with such an alteration of the law, to proceed with great care, and that upon a Bill framed as is that of my noble and learned friend it will be easier, if necessary, to engraft subordinate or supplementary provisions than to attempt in the first instance to make the Bill absolutely perfect. I do not wish it to be thought for a moment that I at all go back from the position that I am extremely desirous of seeing something done in this matter, and I recognise the fact that it is almost impossible to hope that such a Bill as I introduced would get through during the present session. I will, therefore, not ask your Lordships to go into Committee on my Bill, but I propose to keep it on the Paper, so that, if it should be thought desirable that supplementary provisions should be introduced into the Lord Chancellor's Bill, I may submit them to the House. I sincerely trust that the Bill, which my noble and learned friend asks your Lordships to read a first time, will be passed, because I am satisfied that some alteration of the law is imperatively demanded.
  Bill for the better prevention of corruption, presented by the Lord Chancellor; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 10th of June next. (No. 88.)

  ARMY REFORM—TRAINING OF OFFICERS—SERVICE MAPS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  LORD LOVATrose to call attention to the state of the service maps now in use ay the Army in South Africa, and to the waste of material and public moneys

  743
  which had occurred by the appointment of not previously trained officers to the remount, railway, and other military departments; and to move to resolve that no scheme of Army reform will be complete which does not train a largely increased number of officers for extra regimental employ without denuding regiments actually on active service. General Hunter had stated in one of his despatches that the maps in use by the Army in South Africa were a danger to the troops serving in that country. When he (Lord Lovat) left South Africa, some four weeks ago, there had been no change for the better, and there seemed to be no prospect of a change for the better. The maps were so bad that it was really impossible to find the position of places on the maps at all; nothing under a range of mountains as big as anything there was in this country received official recognition in the maps. In October it was stated that there was to be a new set of maps. In the northern part of the colony they did get a few new maps with "h's" dotted here and there to signify houses, and with a few springs and dams marked; but that was the only change visible to the ordinary eye. Although inaccurate in every other particular, the old maps gave correctly the position of boundary fences, and the present issue was exactly the same in that respect, the wire fences being marked with great accuracy, but everything that was of military importance was left out as before. The disgraceful way in which the maps had been prepared had caused very bad feeling among the Army in South Africa. Columns were not infrequently asked to do things which were perfectly impossible, and which they would not have been asked to do it the Generals had been in possession of maps showing the exact position of the country. When it was announced that a discussion was to take place it was fully expected that the Army would have the small satisfaction of seeing someone in Pall Mall blamed in connection with the maps. But they had seen nothing but evasions and a complete whitewashing of the Intelligence Department, and were most dissatisfied in consequence. When the Army was still working in brigades there were intelligence officers who made regular road reports, in which
  744
  everything of military interest was entered. The last man he spoke to on leaving South Africa was an intelligence officer who had been out there for over eighteen months, and who informed him that nothing whatever had been done in the way of collecting these reports so that the Army could be informed as to future marches. He was aware that not one of the twenty or thirty maps of the Orange River Colony was reliable. Why should not the service send out to South Africa members of geographical societies who were accustomed to take observations and to obtain information for the purpose of preparing maps? He understood that men had been sent out at the beginning of the campaign to prepare a map of the whole country, but the number of mapdrawers was not sufficient for the columns, and they were therefore distributed about instead of being set about the work in a proper manner, as originally intended. Confusion also prevailed in that most important branch, the Remount Department. Senior officers, usually from the Militia, with absolutely no previous training, were appointed as figureheads, and Reserve officers were called upon to undertake this work whether they knew anything about it or not. What was the result? He had seen 130 horses sent out which had only 218 shoes between them. They had to trek a number of miles the following day, and they hobbled into camp absolutely worthless. On no less than three occasions he had known horses to be issued that were suffering from strangles and glanders. Things were not so bad now, because these officers, although untrained when they started, had had a year's experience.
  With regard to the railways, men were employed upon them who had no knowledge whatever of the work. He would mention two examples. The sole qualification of one man who was employed at a most important junction was that he had been formerly bugler in a Yeomanry regiment. Another man appointed had been connected with the Privy Purse in England. Presumably it was thought that he could count the fares quickly at the station, it being forgotten that soldiers did not pay when travelling up and down the State railway. The shunter ruled absolutely at

  745
  each station. On him depended entirely whether a train was ready to start in three hours or in eleven hours. Many of the shunters were pro-Boers, or, at least, were friendly disposed towards the Boers, and that, of course, affected the intelligence and despatch with which the work was executed. He thought that Volunteer officers engaged in railway work should be sent out to South Africa to look after the shunting. Many large employers of labour in South Africa had told him that three shillings a day was an absurd wage to pay to the black men, who were in no sense, though they pretended to be, trained drivers; and there was much dissatisfaction because the War Office was so lavish of hand in paying these men, while the soldiers received only the wretched shilling a day. With regard to meat contracts, he was aware that the contractors bought the cattle on foot at 3d. per pound, that the troops had the trouble of driving them in, and even of killing them, and had then to pay from 9d. to 11d. per pound for the meat. The result of putting large numbers of men to jobs which they did not understand was that many regiments were destitute of officers who had any knowledge of warfare, and the efficiency of the troops was lowered. The Seaforth Highlanders some months ago had only two captains, half of the companies being commanded by second lieutenants. The same thing happened in the case of the Cameron Highlanders. For some time the second in command was a man of only four years service, and he also had to do adjutant's work. The first time he (Lord Lovat) was in action, he acted, although a cavalry soldier with no knowledge of infantry drill, as adjutant and second in command of a thousand men. The latter were commanded chiefly by junior subalterns, who made a very bad job of it. In a nation like ours it was particularly necessary that we should have an increased number of officers. There was no doubt, from what we had seen in this war, that the ultimate strength of the nation lay with the untrained millions who were ready to fight for their country. We had splendid fields to draw from in Canada, in Australia, and in South Africa, but it was absolutely essential that we should have the officers necessary to train these men, and officers could not be made in a day.
  Moved to resolve, "That no scheme of Army reform will be complete which does not train a largely increased number of officers for extra regimental employ without denuding regiments actually on active service."—(Lord Lovat.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, before replying to the speech of the noble Lord, I would venture to compliment him on the very excellent work which his corps of scouts has done in South Africa, and to congratulate him on his safe return. When I first read the notice on the Paper, I thought it was fairly comprehensive. I now find that my original ideas of it were small. The noble Lord's speech ranged over a very large part of the conduct of the war in South Africa, but at this comparatively late hour I am not in a position to discuss the entire conduct of the campaign. I will, however, endeavour, as far as I can, to reply to the strictures of the noble Lord. With regard to the question of maps, at the beginning of the war a special map of the Orange Free State and surrounding country was prepared by the Intelligence Division and sent out for the use of the troops. No government survey existed, either of the Orange Free State or of the Transvaal, and maps, therefore, had to be based on the farm surveys to which the noble Lord takes such objection. There were also some hundreds of special reconnaissances of routes executed by British officers before the commencement of the war. After Lord Roberts assumed command, arrangements were made for the compilation of another map. Much local information was available, and, therefore, the new map was more complete than the original map sent out by the Intelligence Division. This map has been used in the field throughout the war, and we have laboured under the impression that it had proved very satisfactory. In addition, a large number of general maps have been supplied, such as Jeppe's map of the Transvaal, Bartholomew's map of South Africa, Russell's map of Natal, and special maps of Johannesberg and Pretoria. Criticism on the deficiency of the maps rests on a series of misapprehensions. The country is enormous, and there are no Government surveys in existence.

  747
  I think it is not the primary business of the home Government, nor would it be at all desirable, that we should take upon ourselves the burden of executing surveys of the various colonies; it is equally obvious that it was impossible to survey states in the position of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal previous to the war. We must naturally be dependent upon information to be collected from one source and another, aided, possibly, to a certain extent by military reconnaissances. The noble Lord complained that there is apparently no work being done with regard to surveys. I would inform him that two completely equipped survey sections were sent out to South Africa, and also two mapping sections, all under the direction of trained survey officers, and they have, I believe, done a large amount of work.
  With regard to the question of remounts, the number required in this war has so far exceeded expectations of any possible war that preparations could not have been made on a sufficient scale. It is impossible to imagine that if we are unfortunately drawn into war again, remounts on anything like the same prodigious scale will ever be required. As to the question of the training of officers in remount duties, no doubt it is the case that some officers were sent out who were not fully acquainted with the work, but if we had waited until we had got a complete system of thoroughly trained officers, including training in lassoing horses on the veldt, we should have had to wait an enormous time before it was possible to send out remounts. The same thing applies to a certain extent to the railways. The army was suddenly called upon to take over the administration of enormous distances of railways, and no doubt it is possible that the selection of men was not always the best; but I do not know why the noble Lord objects to the shunter having anything to say with regard to the administration of the station. I should have thought that the shunter was an exceedingly important man, and that his advice would be taken in cases of marshalling or sending trains backwards or forwards. The Volunteer railway officers to whom the noble Lord referred chiefly consist of the
  748
  managing directors and so forth of the large railway companies in the United Kingdom, and I am afraid the rates of pay which would be necessary to tempt those gentlemen to take over the railways in South Africa would exceed 3s. a day, which the noble Lord says is too much to pay to the black men. The whole question of the requisite number of officers is a difficult one. Either you must have in peace time a very large increase of officers, or you must trust to reserve officers of some sort or other. A large increase in peace time naturally means a vast increase in expense. In the case of reserve officers you have the difficulty, first of all, of training them, and, secondly, of keeping that training up to date. That difficulty is not peculiar to this country, for in every country in Europe there exists the difficulty of providing officers for the troops which may be mobilised in time of war. I can quite understand the noble Lord's anxiety on the question of maps. To him, as a commanding officer of scouts, maps are perhaps more important than to anybody else; but I cannot but think that it is somewhat doubtful how far it is advisable that these questions should be discussed by officers who are now on full pay. I doubt very much whether it is to the best interest of the army that these questions should be discussed in this way.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am sure your lordships listened to the speech of the noble Lord who raised this question with the greatest delight. We in this House may congratulate ourselves in having in him, not only a comrade who can hit hard on the veldt, and give a good account of himself there, but one who is also able to dilate upon his experiences in a graphic and at the same time in a moderate and temperate manner. I am sure I shall only be voicing the feelings of your Lordships when I say that we all hope that when he goes back in a fortnight's time with a new set of men, he will render as good an account of himself as he has done in the past, and that he will return to give a more cheerful account of South Africa. At the same time may I be allowed to put in a word for the request he has made to the War Office to be allowed to

  749
  take three companies of scouts to South Africa instead of two, as originally proposed? It seems to me that we have been able through the corner of the veil that Lord Lovat has raised to-night to see some of the reasons which have led to the great prolongation of the war, and the great cost at which it is being waged. Take this one question of maps. Of course South Africa is a huge country. I admit that; but still it is a country where we have been ourselves for a very long time. The Orange Free State and the Transvaal are practically surrounded by British territory, and, besides that, we have been engaged again and again in campaigns against both the Boers and the natives. It appears to me that during all that time we might have accumulated sufficient knowledge of the country to have been able to provide our troops with maps which would have been of some use to them, and which would have shown them where they could find water and what operations they might safely enter upon.
  The lack of proper maps in this war affords one more proof of what I can only call the blind over-confidence of Ministers in the way in which they entered upon hostilities. After all, the war did not come suddenly; it was expected. I suppose that if anybody had been asked during the last four or five years as to the most probable part of the world where the British nation might be involved in arms, he would have said in South Africa. During the first six months of 1899 the Government were engaged in making constant demands upon Mr. Kruger, and it was evident that, if the demands of the Government were refused, the end must be war. Therefore, when you were making these demands, you ought to have been making such preparations as would have enabled you to enter upon the war in the strongest way possible. Amongst other necessaries, we required maps, but the want of maps was just as great in Natal—you will find this mentioned in Sir Redvers Buller's despatch—as in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. Again, why could not the Government have massed in Cape Colony sufficient troops to guard that territory from attack by the Boers in the first instance? Why did you not make sufficient arrange-
  750
  ments for your transport? One of the great difficulties in the war has been the deficiency in the number of horses. The noble and gallant Lord the Under Secretary for War said that the question of remounts was an enormous one. Of course it was. I suppose every sensible person knew from the commencement that this was a war which would have to be carried on by mounted troops. All the more necessary was it, therefore, to see that that particular department was put into the hands of competent men, and not given over to men who hardly knew a horse from a cow. The son of the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, was put in charge of the remount department, although he knew nothing whatever about horses. The great question is, How are you going to make the military forces of this country efficient in the future? It seems to me that the only way in which we can secure for this country an army, not very big, but very mobile, very efficient, of the best material, and armed in the best possible manner, is to show to our soldiers, whether they are men in the ranks, or whether they are officers, that we who employ them are going to be first-rate employers.
  What is the scheme which the Government have proposed? They are going to establish six army corps. The first will consist almost entirely of Regular soldiers; the second will consist mostly of Regular soldiers and partly of Auxiliaries; and the third will consist mostly of Auxiliaries and partly of Regular soldiers. The other three army corps do not exist very much in any way, except on paper, and it is extremely doubtful whether you will get the men. I do not agree with some of my noble friends that it is possible to do without a sufficient army. I believe you must have an army, but the only way in which you can get the men is by holding out a sufficient attraction to them to join, and the only way to do that is by treating them better than you do now. In the House of Commons the other day a question was asked as to the reductions which are made from the pay of the soldier for different matters, and it was admitted that 1s. 3d. a month is deducted for washing, a penny per month for hair-cutting, twopence per month for library subscription, twopence per month for the rifle club, and two-

  751
  pence per month for the cricket club The idea of making a deduction from a soldier's pay for a subscription to a rifle club is most monstrous. First of all, you want to make the soldier a good shot and it does seem to me that the Government might at any rate establish rifle clubs in which soldiers can learn that important duty, without having twopence per month deducted from their miserable pay. It is said that if we did not make these deductions it would cost the country £600,000 a year, which would work out at something like twopence a day to each soldier. I should very much like to see the Government begin by adding that amount to the pay of the soldier. When the soldier joins as a raw boy, by all means let his pay be low but as he increases in efficiency you will find that the best possible way to attach him to the service is by increasing his pay. By that means you would more and more attach to the Army old soldiers who could be trusted when the pinch came to give a good account of themselves. I agree that the system is wrong by which the best officers are taken from the regiments in the field at the time when their presence with the regiment is most required. How can you expect young soldiers to do well if they have not officers to lead them in whom they have confidence, and to whom they are accustomed? The reason that the corps which my noble friend commanded was able to do such excellent work was that they had good officers. It was a matter of chaff that some of his subalterns were bald-headed and grizzled, but they were men of experience, and were able to lead the men with success. A better system must be established in time of peace, so that when war comes the officers may be left with their regiments. There is often too much honour and glory given to the staff officer to the exclusion of the regimental officer, on whom the burden of th day falls. One thing has been proved in this war, that we can trust implicitly to our men and our regimental officers, and that whoever else has made mistakes, they have always been trustworthy. It does seem to me a pity that you do not better recognise the value of your regimental officers. The strong point of the new Army scheme is that you will under it, I hope, set up six centres of training for soldiers in this country. In those
  752
  six centres I hope opportunity will be given to officers to be trained, not merely in taking charge of the one particular arm to which they may be attached, but in handling infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Again and again in this war has it fallen to general officers to undertake this duty without having had previous experience of the work. I hope this is a matter to which the Government will give their attention, and if under this scheme facilities are given, we shall have gained one great advantage. I would suggest to my noble friend that he should not press his motion to a division, but be satisfied with having brought his case so well and so fully before the House.
  The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am sure we on this side of the House desire to associate ourselves with the congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord on his safe return, and with the acknowledgments of the valuable services which he has rendered in South Africa. If after he has gone back to that country he should return to this House and occasionally do a little sniping at this Bench, we shall not take his criticisms amiss, but recognise that they come from one who knows what he is talking about. The noble Lord has opened a discussion which has already drifted over a great many subjects, and which would take a very long time to conclude if those subjects were to be at all fully handled. He has dealt with the question of maps, with the question of remounts, with the question of shunters on the railway, with the question of meat contracts, and with the question concerning the supply of regimental officers. The noble Lord who has just sat down went further still, and proceeded to review Mr. Brodrick's Army Scheme, and to tell us what he thought of the six army corps. My noble and gallant colleague spoke just now of the lateness of the hour. I can plead that excuse with perhaps slightly more plausibility than he could, and I feel sure no good purpose would be served by attempting a minute examination of all the points which have been raised. But as to the question of maps, I do not suppose anyone has ever contended that it is the business of the War Department to be prepared with a large-scale and elaborate map of every country in which His Majesty's forces are called

  753
  upon to serve. We have had an interesting little operation going on lately in Jubaland. I do not suppose the noble Lord opposite wouldhave expected that the Intelligence Department should have had Jubaland surveyed and mapped out with all the dwellings, if such things are to be found there. The theatre of war has been very extensive, and I believe it would have been physically impossible for the Intelligence Branch to survey the greater part of that area before hostilities broke out. The suggestion of the noble Lord, that as soon as a certain amount of contention arose between His Majesty's Government and that of the Transvaal we should have set to work to execute surveys, is one which would have been a little difficult to carry out. I do not think the survey parties would have been particularly well received if they had made their appearance in the neighbourhood of Pretoria. But though we said very little about it at the time, we did take what measures we could to obtain information about the topography of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
  The noble and gallant Lord also suggested that after the war broke out more might have been done by collating the very valuable road reports prepared from time to time by different officers. If there has been any failure to do that he must not lay it to the charge of those unfortunate persons in Pall Mall against whom he directed so much of his eloquence. There, again, I should conceive that in most parts of the country the position of survey authorities would have been extremely hazardous, and that it might not have been very easy to do what the noble and gallant Lord suggested. Most of the shortcomings to which attention has been called are all shortcomings of a kind traceable to one and the same source—to the fact that the magnitude of these operations was far greater than anyone foresaw. That we have always frankly admitted, and it is quite clear that when, comparatively early in the campaign, troops equivalent in numbers to three army corps had to be sent out of the country, a very great strain had to be put on all departments, with the result that the best men available had to be employed, even when they had not been
  754
  previously trained for their duties. As to the other shortcomings which have been revealed, His Majesty's Government have never attempted to contend that shortcomings had not been disclosed by, or that no lesson was to be learnt from, the war. I believe that the authorities at the War Office are fully determined that those lessons shall be turned to good account, and I feel sure that most of the points mentioned this evening by the noble and gallant Lord are points which have already attracted the attention of the Secretary of State and of Lord Roberts, and that his criticism will receive the attention which it undoubtedly deserves.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  THE ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The motion standing in my name is the same as the one I have already submitted, and which your Lordships have accepted, with the solitary exception that it is in favour of a Select Committee to be appointed by this House, and not a Joint Committee to be appointed with the co-operation of the other House. The House of Commons, for reasons connected with its own business, do not seem willing to go into this inquiry, and, therefore, I think we had better go on with it by ourselves. I cannot think that if we can possibly avoid it we ought to allow an enactment so little creditable to our Statutebook to remain upon it without some modifications or improvement. I propose to submit the names as soon as the House reassembles.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the declaration required of the Sovereign, on his accession by the Bill of Rights (1 Will. III. cap. 2, s. 1); and to report whether its language can be modified advantageously, without diminishing its efficacy as a security for the maintenance of the Protestant succession."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL SPENCER: I rejoice extremely, that the noble Marquess has thought it right to bring on this subject. I

  755
  stated my views in one of the first speeches made on this subject, and I think the terms in which the noble Marquess has framed his motion ought to meet the case without raising any great difficulty.
  On Question agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 89.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven of the clock to Monday, the 10th of June next, a quarter past Four of the clock.