Sitting of 17 April 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [BY ORDER].
  Motion made and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Bill was, in fact, the identical Bill which was presented by the Company last year for the consideration of Parliament, and it would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that on that occasion Parliament rejected the measure, not because of its merits or demerits, but because of the circumstances surrounding certain clauses which savoured of proceedings which he did not hesitate to describe as proceedings such as of low-class City company promoters. He had no desire to hinder the railway company in the conduct of its
  478
  legitimate business, and if the rumour which he had heard was well founded, it would seem that the contention which he had put forward last year had had good effect, and had borne excellent fruit, because he Understood that the company had undertaken to rebuild certain houses, and put into repair other houses, and not to use a particular site until Parliament had given its sanction for the purposes of the railway. He would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rumour to which he had referred was, or was not, correct. If it were correct, it would be the fact that the company had, under pressure of Parliament, tardily recognised its duty according to the law of the land. There had been a good deal of assiduous lobbying in connection with the Bill, but he hoped the effect would be to prove that the directors of railway companies could not expect to be successful when they were seeking to avoid their responsibilities in these matters. It was not his intention, providing he got an assurance that the rumour to which he had referred was correct, to further oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. His action had been dictated by motives of public policy, and all he had desired was to insist that public bodies should not evade their obligations under the law. He did not, consequently, propose to press the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper, and all he wished to do was to ask the Home Secretary if he could confirm the rumour he had before alluded to.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,)said he had received a communication from the London and North Western Railway Company to the effect that the buildings, the acquisition of which was one of the causes of the action taken by the House last year, would be repaired and let to the same class of tenants as before.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if there was any guarantee that the rents of the houses would not be raised.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid there was none, but no doubt the railway company would

  479
  recognise it was not to their interest to raise the rents. He wished to point out, however, that the Bill before the House was of quite unobjectionable a character, and he thought his hon. friend had exercised a wise discretion in not pressing his opposition to its Second Heading.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was rather difficult to judge on the spur of the moment whether the assurances of the company, as conveyed by the Home Secretary, were sufficiently satisfactory. He thought that the Committee should have an opportunity of considering the matter, and of deciding whether or not some clause should be inserted in the Bill to secure the particular object they had in view.
  MR. RITCHIE: That is nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that was unfortunately the difficulty they had to face, and it certainly should not be lost sight of. It was quite clear that this powerful railway corporation had practically intended to drive a coach and four through a statute of the House of Commons, and he congratulated the hon. Member on having so successfully raised an obstacle in their way.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he did not intend to reply to the offensive epithets which had been thrown across the floor of the House in regard to the company. If hon. Members wanted any guarantee that they would carry out their word, surely the good name of the London and North Western Company was in itself a sufficient guarantee.
  MR. JOHN BURNSpointed out that there were certain duties imposed by law upon the company in regard to the housing, or rather the rehousing, of persons whom they dishoused, and it was essential that care should be taken to see they carried out their statutory obligations. He hoped the Home Secretary would see that the railway companies fulfilled their obligations, which had not always been the case in the past.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must point out that that is not the question before the House. The question of the housing of the working classes has nothing whatever to do with this matter.
  MR. RITCHIEprotested against the language of the hon. Gentleman, and against the assumption that the Government had not compelled the railway companies to carry out their statutory obligations.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he had pointed out that in the past the Home Office had not fulfilled its duty in regard to this matter, and to that statement he adhered, although he did not suggest that it was necessarily the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible. He could not be responsible for the mistakes of his predecessors in office.
  MR. BLAKEsuggested that it was important to include some provision in the Bill to prevent the undue raising of rents on the houses.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the matter hardly arose on the Motion before the House.
  MR. FIELDsaid the opposition to Bills of this kind was a good thing, because it caused the companies to recognise that the House of Commons had a certain amount of authority in these matters, and was not a machine for the mere passing of legislation on their behalf. He had made several inquiries into this matter, and he thought that if the company gave an assurance to the President of the Board of Trade that the tenants of this property would not be dispossessed, the Bill ought to be allowed to pass its Second Reading. The suggestions of hon. Members opposite could be dealt with in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time and committed.

  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  [BY ORDER.]
  MR. DILLONsaid the Instruction which he desired to move referred to Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill,

  481
  which gave power to the Corporation to acquire the land on which the Ulster Hall was built, and the building itself, and to make any alteration which they thought fit in the hall. As was well known to Members acquainted with Belfast, the Ulster Hall was the only hall in the city in which a really large public gathering could be held. It was a very fine hall—perhaps the best and finest in Ireland for that purpose. It had been owned and controlled hitherto by a private syndicate, who treated it as a commercial speculation and let it for public meetings of every character, with a few exceptions, and for public entertainments. He understood that, being a very large and valuable hall, it had not been a very successful speculation lately, and it was now desired, very naturally, to sell it to the Corporation to be used as a town hall or a place of public assembly. He asked hon. Members to observe that there was nothing in the terms of the Instruction to prevent the Corporation laying down any set of regulations which would render absolutely impossible any abuse in the way of hiring the hall or its devotion to any object of a generally objectionable character—he meant any improper or indecent exhibition. The Corporation under that Instruction would be perfectly at liberty to lay down any body of general regulations, covering the use and letting of the hall and the only object and effect of the Instruction would be that the Corporation should not be at liberty to boycott or exclude from the hall any body of citizens on religious or political grounds. Was it or was it not fair that the hall should be open to all who desired to use it for a fair and reasonable purpose, and that it should not be denied to any of the minority of the citizens who chanced to differ politically or religiously from the majority? In England, bodies of Irish Nationalists in the great cities were much less numerous as compared with their numbers in Belfast; and yet in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, or London, the town halls were never denied to any body of Irish Nationalists who desired them for the purpose of holding meetings, and that was even true of periods when Party passion and Party feeling ran very high, and when the body of men who asked for them, was most violently opposed to the views of the majority of the ratepayers, and, of course,
  482
  to the corporate bodies who controlled the town halls. He had never known an instance in which anyone suggested that the use of the town hall should he refused because his politics chanced to differ from theirs. He thought it was a recognised principle of public life in this country that no matter how much the majority in any meeting or Corporation might differ from the minority who desired to use the city hall for a political or religious character, that it was desirable that they should not be interfered with and that they should be at perfect liberty to state their views, so long as they observed law and preserved decency and order, and complied with the general regulations under which the hall was managed. That was all he asked for in this Instruction and nothing more.
  When he first put this Instruction on the Paper, he was under the impression, after a conversation with gentlemen representing the Corporation, that it would be unopposed, and he was sorry to find that that was not the case. The debate would chiefly turn upon the question—Were they justified on grounds of necessity in asking for this clause? He knew it would be said, and very strongly contended, that they were insulting the Corporation by asking for a security of this character. It had been said in the course of past debates concerning Belfast that the Corporation and the House of Commons had again and again decided—unwillingly, of course, and with considerable regret—that in Belfast Party feeling ran so high that it was necessary and just to apply some exceptional treatment in these matters. No man in Ireland regretted that more than he did, and he hoped the time would come before very long when that condition of things would have passed away, and when they would be able to trust the Corporation of Belfast to deal with the Nationalist minority in the same way that the Corporation of Glasgow, or Birmingham, or London dealt with the Nationalist minority in those centres. The experience of Irish Nationalists in this matter had been that this Ulster Hall had been in the hands of a syndicate of private individuals, who included amongst them some representatives of the Corporation of Belfast, and they, at all events,

  483
  might be taken as a very fair average representation of the same sentiment which inspired the Corporation of Belfast. On more than one occasion in the past, application had been made by-men who represented 70,000—one-fourth of the population of the city—and the hall had been denied to them; and on one occasion, not very long ago, the owners of the hall said they would let it to the Nationalists, who had applied for it for a public meeting, for £100; whereas it was let to gatherings in sympathy with the Corporation and the majority in Belfast for £15. Was that fair? There was nothing in the Bill as it stood to prevent the Corporation doing exactly the same thing. A very curious thing happened last autumn. Again an application was made to the proprietors of the Ulster Hall for liberty to hold a meeting, which was to be addressed by the hon. Member for Waterford and himself, and again it was refused. But on further consideration—he would not say it was because this Bill was coming on—the trustees or owners of the hall sent word that they could have it on the same terms as it was usually let. He thought probably the shadow of this Bill had some effect upon it. They held their meeting, the hall was packed to the very doors by a very respectable audience, who paid a very high price to go in; and there was no mischief of any kind done, and the meeting was a great success. Why should one-fourth of the citizens be denied the use of the only great public hall of the city? That was the issue contained in the Instruction, and he thought hon. Members who approached this question in a fair spirit, when they had heard what had been their experience as regards the Ulster Hall in the past, and when they knew that those private individuals who had had control over the hall in the past might be fairly accepted as representatives of the spirit of the majority of the Corporation, would agree that there was nothing unreasonable in the fear that the same policy would be pursued in the future, if the Corporation were allowed without any check to acquire possession of the hall, as was pursued in the past by the private owners. But there was this great difference—that, of course, in any
  484
  city in the world, however we might condemn their action and regret it, any body of private individuals who purchased a site or a hall were perfectly entitled to let or refuse to let it to whoever they liked. But it was a very different matter when the hall was purchased out of the pockets of the ratepayers of the city. It then became a great action of oppression and injustice if the majority of the Corporation were to deny to the minority the use of the Town Hall, for which they were paying as well as the other citizens. That was the reason why the claim he made was so great to have this provision inserted.
  On what ground did the Corporation object to the Instruction? He should wait with curiosity to hear. How could any member or representative of the Corporation say frankly or honestly that he believed that there was no risk or danger of the Corporation meeting in the way he had described and refusing the hall for meetings of a political complexion different from their own? Every man who knew Belfast, and anyone concerned with the honour and peace and the cultivation of goodwill amongst the different sections of the city, would be anxious that such a provision as this should be put into the Bill in order to protect the Corporation against themselves or against certain hot headed members of their body, and to secure that this additional subject of contention and bitter feeling should not be added to the many which already, unhappily, existed. There was only one other ground on which he could conceive any Member for Belfast objecting to the intoduction of this safeguarding clause. It might be said that the hall and the ratepayers must be protected against damage, the cost of which would fall upon them. That appeared to be a most preposterous argument. Surely those who were holding the meeting inside the hall were not going to damage it. The damage could only come from some crowd attacking the hall or interfering with the meeting, and he thought it was a very strange argument that the hall should not be let to a section of the population opposed to the Corporation in politics, for fear that any section of the population might attack the meeting and damage the

  485
  hall. That appeared to be a kind of premium on rowdyism and riot, and intimating to the people who would cultivate those arts in Belfast that if they were only riotous they would succeed in their object of preventing the holding of meetings. But really it was not a good argument. Those who knew the topography of Belfast and the position of the hall knew that it was removed from what might be called the fighting district, and that it could not be interfered with by a mob if the police took ordinary precautions. What took place last Autumn when he spoke there? They had an immense meeting, and all kinds of threats and rumours were in the air. When the meeting assembled, a number of boys and noisy people assembled outside the doors of the hall, but a very few police dealt with them effectually, and not the slightest disturbance took place. The hall was so situated that proper police arrangements could absolutely secure it from the invasion of anything like a formidable mob. That was a question really of the rights of a minority, and if a similar case arose either in Dublin or Cork, and if the Nationalist Members had any reason to suppose that the Corporation of Dublin or Cork would seek to deny to an Orange meeting or a Tory meeting the use of the town hall, purchased and maintained out of the ratepayers' money they would be delighted to agree to any clause in the Bill restraining these Corporations from action such as that He appealed to hon. Members opposite in dealing with this question to dismiss from their minds for a moment Party feelings and Party considerations, and address themselves to it simply as a question of fair play to a minority, and of protection of the right of public meeting. He begged to move.
  MR. DOOGANsaid he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion of his honourable friend, because if the instruction were inserted in the Bill it would, in his opinion, tend to break down the religions and political intolerance which unhappily characterise the dominant party in Belfast. Belfast was famed for its progress, its enlightenment, and, in some respects, its liberality; and he could not conceive how the
  486
  Corporation could object to a large minority of the ratepayers being afforded the use of a hall purchased, to a considerable extent, with their own money. To his mind, the clause would be a relief to the Corporation, as it would get them out of a difficulty. There was a very intolerant section in Belfast, which had considerable voting interest, and if the Corporation would set that section an example of broad-mindedness, toleration, and liberality, it would be a great boon to the city. He had no doubt that nothing but good would come of it. It was quite time that the recurring riots which had drenched the streets of Belfast in blood should be put an end to, not only by the opinion of this House, but also by those who had the destinies of Belfast in their hands. The Corporation might say that what was proposed was coercion, but they were always ready in Belfast to use coercion against political opponents. It was not coercion, but a small modicum of that fair play and justice which the House accorded to minorities throughout the whole of the Empire. Why, then, should the Catholics and Nationalists of Belfast be exceptionally treated? He hoped the representatives of the Belfast Corporation in the House would rise above the narrow bigotry and intolerance which were a blot on Belfast, and had long been a by word among the civilised peoples of the world.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill to insert a clause providing that the Ulster Hall be available for the use of any section of the community of Belfast who comply with the general regulations laid down by the Corporation for the letting and use of the hall; and shall not be refused on religious or political grounds by the Corporation to any body of citizens who desire to use it."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid that the hon. Member for East Mayo had brought a very serious charge against the previous administration of the Ulster Hall, but the hon. Member did not make it clear that up to the present the Corporation had no power over the hall. The hon. Member also said that a large

  487
  number of members of the Corporation were connected with the hall, either as owners or administrators; but that was not the case. The hall was built primarily, to a large extent, for the purposes of literature and music. It had within its walls one of the finest organs in Ireland, the gift of one of Belfast's noblest citizens. The hall was built by share capital, and, not being profitable, owing to the enormous expense of keeping it up, it went into the market, and the Corporation ultimately agreed to buy it. An Act of Parliament was required, and it was duly advertised, and subsequently a plebiscite was demanded, which resulted in a majority of four to one in favour of the purchase of the hall. No meeting against the purchase had been held in Belfast, and the hon. Member for East Mayo had received no evidence whatever which could justify him in moving his Motion. No doubt the hon. Member was discharging a splendid duty, and earning for himself a large amount of advertisement in connection with affairs in Belfast, but he was acting without the fiat of the citizens, and his action was self-devoted and not representative. Of course, according to the hon. Member, Belfast was a most bigoted place, but what was the fact? Could the hon. Member name any other city of the same political complexion in which he and the hon. Member for Waterford could hold a large meeting without the slightest interference?
  MR. DILLONsaid he gave the cases of Birmingham, Manchester, London, and Glasgow.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid he was dealing with Ireland. If he went to Limerick and called a similar meeting, he would be pelted through the city. What were the facts in regard to Belfast? For some years past the Corporation had had a public hall under its own administration, and he challenged hon. Members to produce a single instance in which the Roman Catholics had asked for and been refused the use of that hall. On the contrary, although they were less than one-fourth of the population, they had had more than one-fourth of the occupation of the hall, at a purely nominal rate, for their religious and charitable gatherings.
  MR. DILLONasked in what hall under the control of the Corporation Nationalists had ever been permitted to hold a meeting in Belfast.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTinstanced the Exhibition Hall, but said he did not refer to Nationalists. A considerable proportion of the Catholics of Belfast, so far from being Nationalists, utterly abhorred Nationalism. If this Instruction were passed, the Corporation, even though the city were in a state of riot, would be unable to refuse the use of the hall for a political meeting.
  MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member was putting a wrong interpretation on the Motion. If the city were in a state of riot, any general regulations would not apply, either to Nationalist or Orange meetings.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTcontended that, as no bye-law could be greater than the Act under which it was made, the Corporation would be unable to refuse any such application. The ground on which this Motion was put forward was that the Belfast Corporation was intolerant. That charge had been made often before, and had been refuted as often as made. Hon. Members declared that Ireland should be allowed to manage her own affairs. Why did they not apply that principle to Belfast, instead of asking the Imperial Parliament to interfere in a matter of this kind? The past history of Belfast bore testimony to its fair treatment of minorities. The hon. Member for East Mayo always received a kindly welcome when he visited Belfast.
  MR. DILLONsaid the last time but one he was there he was received with a perfect whirlwind of nuts and stones.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid that at any rate the hon. Member had been more kindly received in Belfast than in certain places in the south and west of Ireland, where he appeared to be dominant. He had never been charged with deserting the people whom he had betrayed, or of leaving people on the roadside not provided for—
  MR. SPEAKERintimated to the hon. Member was going into matters not relevant to the proposal before the House.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT (continuing)pointed out that Belfast had agreed to acquire this hall; its citizens had declared their satisfaction that the Corporation should acquire it, and they had not demanded the imposition of the slightest embargo. There was a constitutional way of expressing opinion on such matters, but no action had been taken against the Corporation. On the contrary, the citizens had expressed their opinion fully, and the hon. Member opposite stood alone in his opposition. He in no sense represented the general feeling of the people; he did not represent Belfast.
  MR. DILLON: I represent one-fourth of the people.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTdid not admit that. He claimed that he, as a representative of Belfast, and his hon. friends around him, represented the citizens, while the hon. Member for East Mayo in no sense represented them or their opinions in relation to this hall.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDgreatly regretted the tone of the speech of the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat. He could not see any reason why this question should not be discussed with perfect calmness, and without importing those elements of bitterness into the debate, which, unfortunately, were too much in evidence in the public mind in the north of Ireland. The House must really be getting tired of debates about Belfast. Belfast was, in many respects, a very great and prosperous city, but it was the only city in the United Kingdom which invariably came before Parliament in discussions, which raged around these questions of bigotry and intolerance. The hon. Gentleman opposite had complained that the bon. Member for East Mayo had no right to speak on behalf of the Nationalists of Belfast, and he contended that the Nationalists, if they wanted to make their voices heard, should do so in a constitutional way. What more constitutional way could there be than that of speaking through a Member
  490
  of the House who represented their political opinions? They comprised one-fourth of the population of Belfast; they had no direct representative in the House, because their opinions were swamped by the anti-Nationalist majority around them, and when they sought to put their views before the House, through a Member who represented their political views, the hon. Member who came forward on their behalf was told that he had no right to speak for them. The position of the hon. Gentleman was absurd. One would think from the his speech that the hon. Member for East Mayo had in some way opposed the principle of the Bill, and that he was opposed to giving to the Corporation the ownership and control of this hall. But the hon. Member had taken up no such position. The hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to a plebiscite, and said that an overwhelming majority of votes was cast in favour of the Corporation obtaining the ownership of the hall. Quite so. He was himself in favour of the Corporation owning the hall. It was proper that the municipal authority in a great city like Belfast should have the ownership of a large hall such as the Ulster Hall, which could be used for the purposes for which town halls in England were used. All that was asked was that some guarantee should be given that the use of the Hall should not be confined to one section of the population. The hon. Member opposite had laboured the point very much that this was a Motion made in the interests of the Catholics of Belfast, and he had asserted—although it was not fully correct—that there were a large number of Catholics who were not Nationalists. But what had they to say to this question? The proposal was simply that a guarantee should be given, that when the regulations which the Corporation were to be perfectly free to make—they might be as rigid and strict as possible—were complied with, the use of the hall should not be denied to any section of the population on purely religious or political grounds. The hon. Gentleman had declared that no instance could be given of halls in Belfast being refused for such reasons. He was sadly misinformed about his own constituency
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: I said there was no instance in which the Corporation of Belfast had refused the hall under their control.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that did not meet the case at all. The Corporation had had under their control only one hall, and that was a hall never used for political purposes. It was, in point of fact, a concert or dancing-hall, a hall of amusement. That hall had been given by the Corporation for Catholic bazaars. But that did not touch the question at all. They were now speaking of the use of the hall for political purposes, and of its being granted to the Party out of sympathy with the Corporation. There had been such instances. There was an occasion two years ago when, accompanied by his hon. friend, he went to Belfast to address a great public political meeting. The use of this very Ulster Hall was refused, and they were obliged to hold the meeting in a wretchedly small hall which could not accomodate one-fourth of the people who desired to get in. The result was that there were thousands of people surging around the hall, to the great danger of the public peace. They wanted to prevent the possibility of that happening. The men who refused Ulster Hall to them were precisely the same class and the same political Party that was dominant today in the Corporation, and he did not know that they had any reason to believe if the Ulster Hall was refused two years ago by these gentlemen it would not be refused a year hence by the Corporation, who represented the same class and the same political Party in Belfast. They were not making an unreasonable demand. If the House would consider this question fairly they would come to the conclusion that a hall of this kind ought to be under proper regulations and at the disposal of all sections of the population. If hon. Members would look back to the history of Belfast, they would see that they had a strong justification for fearing that this would not take place if the hall were given to the Corporation without some such Instruction as his hon. friend had moved. He believed that this Instruction, if put into the Bill, would tend to break down that wretched feeling of religious and political bigotry which was the disgrace of Belfast today.
  492
  If this Instruction were passed it would be a warning to all sections of the population of Belfast that in the opinion of this House freedom of speech ought to be accorded to all sections of the community; and it would be a declaration by this House that one fourth of the population, because they held views which were repugnant to the majority of their fellow townsmen, ought not to be denied their right of free speech and public meeting. He believed that by putting this Instruction in the Bill this House would not only secure the right of free speech in Belfast, but it would also have, generally, a most valuaable effect in hastening the arrival of the day which he, and others who thought with him, had perhaps more reason to wish hastened than any other people in Ireland, when the reproach and disgrace which rested upon it at the present moment would be lifted off the north of Ireland, when this feeling of religious and political bigotry will cease to exist, and cease to menace, as it did at present, the peace of the city every day that passed over the heads of the citizens.
  MR. WOLFFsaid the hon. Member for Waterford had spoken about the religious bigotry which prevailed in Belfast. He did not wish to enter fully into this matter, but he agreed with what had been said that it was a great pity that no Bill which had the object of effecting an improvement in Belfast, could be brought into this House without there being a bitter political and religious element introduced. He was pleased to say that on this occasion that feeling had not originated on the ministerial side of the House. Any feeling of religious antagonism which had been imported into this debate had been brought in by the supporters of the Resolution which had been proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo. With regard to the Resolution itself there were two questions to be asked in connection with it. The first was, was it reasonable, and the second, was it necessary? If the hon. Member for East Mayo meant that in the letting of this hall no distinction at all should be made to any Party, then he entirely agreed with it; but if he went further and said that this Resolution was necessary to procure equality of treatment, then he differed from him entirely. The

  493
  hon. and learned Member for Waterford said he had no assurance that the Corporation would carry out any such undertaking. In this he was mistaken. He was afraid he had not taken into consideration the change which had taken place in the composition of the Corporation since the last Bill for the enlargement of the boundaries was passed. He could not see any reason why such dangers should be entertained. No instance had been quoted in which the Corporation refused to let the hall. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that Ulster Hall was refused to him, but that hall had no connection whatever with the Corporation. He thought it was very unfortunate that such a Motion as this should be made. Hon. Members opposite had complained about the prejudices of one Party against another in Belfast, which resulted in not. If they thought it was absolutely necessary that something should be put into the Bill to compel the Corporation to cease to let the hall to all parties, surely the evidence in support of that course could be brought before the Committee, and it could then be decided on the evidence of witnesses whether it was necessary to put such a clause in the Bill or not. But why should a Resolution be passed by the House binding the Committee hard and fast without any proof whatever? He thought it would be very much better if the hon. Member were to withdraw his Motion, get his evidence together, and place it before the Committee, and having got the witnesses before them, the Committee could put in a clause to safeguard the interests of the Party with which the hon. Member for East Mayo was connected if they thought the evidence justified it. He strongly objected to such an imputation being put upon the Belfast Corporation as was implied in this Resolution without any evidence whatever.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he intervened for one moment for one specific purpose only. He wanted to call attention to the very large and important question about which, in his humble judgment, the Committee ought to be authoritatively advised before it proceeded to deal with this Bill at all
  494
  one way or the other. He wanted to know what was the law of Ireland on the main point involved in the Instruction which had beon moved by his hon. friend. The main thing about the Instruction was that the Ulster Hall should be available for any section of the community of Belfast who complied with the general regulations laid down by the Corporation for the letting and use of the Hall. That was the essential portion of the Instruction, and the rest of it might be subject to some misinterpretation. He wanted to know what was the law in Ireland now upon this point.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: What is the law in Great Britain?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not prepared to say, and it was not his business to advise the House. He wished to know if it was lawful to discriminate in the use of corporate property between one class of ratepayers and another. Was that possible under the existing law? It was most unreasonable that any such power should belong to a municipal Corporation.
  MR. DILLON: Section 5 says the Corporation shall have power to let the premises from time to time for such purposes and on such terms as they may think proper. They are to be the judges of the purposes.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that clause seemed to be an additional reason for moving this Instruction, and he felt bound to support it unless it could be shown that according to law it was not necessary. He thought the Attorney General ought to make it clear whether this Bill, if passed, would allow the Belfast Corporation to discriminate between Catholics and Protestants or between Nationalists and Unionists as to the use of this hall.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid he was sorry that he could not give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he asked for. He could, however, give the House this assurance. He knew from the legal adviser of the Corporation

  495
  of Belfast that it would be quite impossible for the Corporation to discriminate between the various classes of ratepayers, and if such discrimination did occur the ratepayers had the remedy against the Corporation. The House, however, had to consider whether any case had been made out for discrimination between the Corporation of Belfast and any other Corporation in the United Kingdom. What was really the object of the Instruction which had been moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo? It would place a compulsion on the Corporation of Belfast, which no other Corporation was under in the United Kingdom, to let this hall to any ratepayers who applied for it. Let him give an illustration as to how that might place the Corporation in a very great difficulty. Take the case in which the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends went down from Belfast, and were unable to obtain the use of the Ulster Hall. It was then private property. The friends of the hon. Member for Waterford who applied for the use of that hall were not in a position to enter into the security which was required by the proprietors of the hall, who did not regard them as sufficient security. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Every hall in the country was let under certain conditions of security. The proprietors of the Ulster Hall said, "We are prepared to let you have the use of the hall for £100." This was only an alternative way of getting hold of a certain sum of money as security; and because the persons connected with the meeting which the hon. Member for Waterford wished to address were not considered to be sufficient security for £100, the hall was refused to them.
  MR. DILLON: They asked £100 for the use of the hall for the night. The regular price is only £15.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid he did not in the least accuse the hon. Gentleman of making a mis-statement. He was only explaining the reason why £100 was asked for the use of the hall. They would have got the hall at the ordinary price if they could have become security for a further sum of £100, but the proprietors of the hall did not consider that
  496
  they were sufficient security. The Corporation of Belfast had had, for the past seven years, the management of a large hall as their own property, and no complaints had been made that any section of the community had been favoured. Neither inside nor outside of the Council Chamber in Belfast had any one raised this point, which was supposed to emanate from Belfast. Therefore he submitted that the hon. Member for East Mayo was not justified in asking the House to take this exceptional course of applying to the Corporation of Belfast a compulsion which no other Corporation in the United Kingdom was under at the present time. If there was a real case of injustice lying behind the case presented by the hon. Member for East Mayo, there would, he submitted, be ample opportunity of proving it before the Committee, and he should be the last person to offer any objection to that. The hon. Member for East Mayo was not even supported by the Nationalist members on the Corporation or by Nationalist opinion in the city of Belfast. In conclusion, he submitted that the evidence did not justify the House in taking the very exceptional course which had been proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid that, as a Protestant himself, and as representing a very large Roman Catholic constituency in the north of Ireland, he wished to ask the House to pass this Instruction. There was no doubt that under the clauses of the proposed Bill the Corporation of Belfast would have the absolute control over the Ulster Hall, and could withhold the use of that hall from any party applying for it. They were the trustees of the parties who had constituted them the Council, but as long as they were there they were the absolute owners of the hall, and could refuse the use of it to any body or party who applied for it. They were exactly in the same position as private individuals. If they abused their trust by withholding the hall from proper persons or bodies, the remedy was in the hands of those who had elected them, when the next opportunity came, not to renew their mandate. He asked the House to pass this Resolution

  497
  because the tone of the hon. Member who first spoke against it must show the House what an amount of odium theologicum prevailed in Belfast, and how much that accounted for the unhappy religious and political strife which had been for so many centuries the bane of Ireland. Passing this Instruction would be, at all events to the public at large, an indication that this House strongly reprobated the notion that any body of citizens who complied with the regulations for controlling and regulating the Ulster Hall, or any other hall, should not have free access to it and full use of it. One point put by the hon. Member who spoke last showed how impossible it would be for the Roman Catholics of Belfast, who were a considerable body, to hope to have the advantage and the use of the hall, which the Bill was about to vest in the Corporation of Belfast, because it was manifest that by putting a prohibitive price like £100, as contrasted with £15, they would be able, in the absence of such an Instruction as this, to exclude the representatives of some particular religion or party from the use of the hall.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid there was no prohibitive price on the use of the hall; it was £15, provided security could be given for £100. In this particular case, the persons were not sufficient security, and they were asked to put down £100. If they had been sufficient security, they would have got the hall. The Corporation could not have two prices; it must have one price fixed for the use of the hall.
  MR. HEMPHILLasked if it was supposed that persons animated by the feeling of some of the Northern Members would ever consider that Roman Catholics or Nationalists could be sufficient security for anything. This was, apparently, a legal way of carrying out the object of excluding the party they disapproved of from the use of the hall. But why should not a large proportion of the inhabitants of Belfast, who were willing to comply with any reasonable regulations imposed by the Corporation, have permission (if they were vesting the hall in the Corporation) to use it for all
  498
  purposes? How weak the cause of Toryism or Protestantism must be in Belfast, if it conld not bear the light of public opinion to be thrown upon it, and was afraid to hear the arguments of some of his good friends below the gangway. It was the very worst compliment hon. Gentlemen opposite could pay the cause they so strongly and vehemently attempted to uphold. The other hon. Member for Belfast was much more moderate in his tone, and, he thought, spoke as a man who felt conscious that an injustice was being done. He thought, at this time of day, the House of Commons ought to affirm the principle that every public building should be open to every advocate of any cause, so long as the meeting was properly and legally conducted. This was only a declaration that the Corporation should keep that principle in view, and if they wished to get this hall, they must get it subject to that condition.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I may be allowed, as a Member for Belfast, to add my word in support of what was said by my colleague. I am not in the least surprised that this matter has been brought before the House, because I am well aware that there is a disposition always to challenge and to criticise anything that is done in Belfast, because that city is still a considerable obstacle in the way of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] If it is the desire of hon. Members to treat others as they desire to be treated, then they should apply to the Corporation of Belfast the same conditions which are applied to other Corporations in the cities in which they live. It has not been proved that there is any probability that the power of the Corporation of the city of Belfast will be abused any more than the power of the Corporation of any great city, and until that proof has been brought forward and substantiated, I maintain that we should not be asked to inflict this disability on the Corporation of Belfast. The hon. Member for Dundee said that the whole thing desired to be accomplished is really accomplished in the first part of this proviso.
  MR. DILLON: If I withdraw the last part, will you agree to the Instruction?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think the first part is already included in the law but I should be willing to agree that the Corporation should make reasonable regulations, to apply to all parties alike. That would be perfectly reasonable. It is proposed to impose a condition on the Corporation of Belfast which you do not impose on any other Corporation. If you tried to impose on the Corporation of London or Manchester, or any other city, such a condition as this, you would signally fail in the attempt. Politics and religion may come in many guises. I cannot support the proposal to make this exceptional legislation apply to Belfast only, of all the Corporations in the United Kingdom. I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Belfast that the House might let this matter go to the Committee in the ordinary way, being perfectly certain that the House can entrust to the judgment of that fair-minded body—one of its own Committees—the task of securing that what is just and reasonable shall be incorporated in this Bill.
  MR. MACYEAGHsaid they had had the unique spectacle of the present and the late Secretaries to the Admiralty joining together as happy brothers in opposing this Instruction. He thought it was only religious intolerance and bigoted Unionism that could produce this coalition. Most Members of the House would be struck by the difference in tone between the speeches of the Members for Belfast. The hon. Member for East Belfast thought the Instruction was a reasonable one, but pleaded that it was not necessary. The hon. Member for North Belfast, who was the chief wirepuller of the Corporation, did not give even a promise on behalf of the Corporation that the hall would not be used as they were led to believe that it would be used when the Corporation got possession of it. He found that the Belfast Evening Telegraph said—
  "It must be admitted that the owners of the Ulster Hall have power to refuse any application
  500
  they like, and when a possible breach of the peace is anticipated or where speakers whose views are antagonistic to the majority of the citizens are present, we consider the owners ate perfectly justified in refusing the use of the hall."
  He hoped hon. Members would note that declaration on the part of a leading Unionist organ in Belfast, and that they would deduce from that what were the intentions of the Belfast Corporation in reference to the management of the hall in future. If his hon. friends the Members for Last Mayo and Waterford desired to address a meeting in the Ulster Hall, they would doubtless be told that their views were antagonistic to the majority of the citizens. If the First Lord of the Treasury went there to proclaim his views on a Catholic University for Ireland, he would receive a similar answer. He would ask the House to consider in whose hands the letting of the hall would be. It would practically mean that the hall would be managed by the town clerk of Belfast, who he believed was now in the gallery of the House. That gentleman swore once before a Royal Commission that he could tell a Catholic by looking at his face. They were expected to hand over the rights of Catholic citizens of Belfast, in the matter of the use of this hall, to this expert in religious and political physiognomy. The hon. Member for North Belfast stated that the Belfast Corporation had always treated the Catholics of Belfast with the greatest generosity, but as a matter of fact until the House interfered, under a Conservative Government, no Catholic was allowed to join the Corporation or obtain any appointment under it. Since the last Act was passed, the hon. Member for East Belfast said the representation had been broadened and that all religious bodies now had representation. He forgot to tell the House, however, that he himself and those who sat with him opposed that Rill when it was before the House. That Corporation, moreover, which was said to be a model of toleration, and which the hon. Baronet opposite cited as such, excluded Catholics from its employment, and, both before the Royal Commission in 1887 and the Parliamentary Committee in 1892, the town clerk of Belfast admitted that there were only two Catholic employees out of ninety-one

  501
  in responsible positions; and he admitted also that only £250 out of nearly £17,000 paid in salaries by the Corporation went to those who constituted nearly one-fourth of the city's population. The hon Baronet shook his head, but between the sworn testimony of his own town, clerk and the shaking of the hon. Baronet's head, he was bound to abide by the evidence. It was also an instructive fact that a few days ago the Belfast Corporation, in making the appointment of manager to the public baths, situated in the Catholic quarter of the city, absolutely refused to entertain the claims of Catholic applicants for the appointment. The hon. Baronet and the ex-Secretary to the Admiralty, and others, had protested against that Motion on the grounds that it was very exceptional legislative action, and that nothing of the kind had been done with regard to other Corporations. But the whole history of Belfast legislation had been exceptional. The representation to which reference had been made was secured by the direct intervention of all Members in that House. In the year 1892 the Parliamentary Committee refused to pass the preamble of a Bill promoted by the Belfast Corporation until that Corporation abandoned its right to interfere with local Catholic reformatories, to the maintenance of which the ratepayers contributed—a decision which was inevitable, but which stood absolutely without parallel in the history of municipal institutions. Hon. Members opposite had their faults, God knew; but there was one they had not been accused of—religious bigotry, and he contended that any hon. Member who had listened to that discussion with an unbiassed mind would say that a conclusive case had been made out that Catholic rights in the management of that hall should be protected, and that the arguments of the supporters of the Bill had completely failed. The hon. Member for East Belfast, addressing a gathering of working men in Queen's Island, said—
  "We cannot do anything without the help of England, and you have disgusted the English people. They will say, 'What is the good of us doing anything for the Ulster fellows if they will not behave themselves?' If you have a bit of common sense, you will just drop it."
  502
  That was an excellent speech, and he would say to the opponents of the Instruction that if they had a bit of common sense they would just drop it. It was very little they asked, and there had been no argument worthy of consideration advanced against this Instruction. If they honestly desired to have freedom of speech in Belfast, why did they not accept the Instruction, which inflicted no indignity; and only ensured that all people in the city should be treated alike? The Belfast Corporation the other day decided that if that Instruction were deemed necessary by the House, there should be some provision inserted for the protection of the ratepayers. That was a more reasonable spirit than that exhibited by the representatives of the city in that House that day, who had out-Heroded Herod, and declined to accept even what the Corporation were prepared to adopt. He appealed with every confidence to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to give one more evidence, as they had done again and again before, that they were determined not to allow their public action to be controlled or dictated by political or religious bigotry.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONsaid he rose only to occupy the time of the House for a few moments, but this matter so vitally affected the interests of the great city of which he had the honour to be one of the Members, that he appealed to the House to grant him its indulgence. It was desired by this Instruction to place Belfast in a unique position. It was desired to stigmatise it as unworthy of municipal government. It was desired to place it in a position of inferiority to the great cities of England and Scotland, which had been entrusted with the management of their own affairs. He confidently appealed to the House—at any rate, he appealed to hon. Members on his own side of the House—not to allow that stigma to be attached to one of the great strongholds of loyalty and law in Ireland; a city which had sent out its soldiers to maintain the honour of the British flag; a city which year after year—he might almost say century after century—had been extending and progressing and prospering in a way which he should be glad indeed to see the other cities of Ireland emulating. Something had been

  503
  said about the town clerk of Belfast, and something about the population. He need say nothing about the town clerk: it was unnecessary to those who knew him. For many years he had devoted enterprise and energy and abilities of no mean order to the development of the industrial resources of Belfast. He was a party, when the boundaries of Belfast were extended, to the arrangement by which the Roman Catholics participated in the divisions of the city in order that they might be represented in the Corporation; and he ventured to assert of the Corporation of Belfast that it was as generous, as large-minded, and as ready to give fair play to the Roman Catholics as to the Protestants in any question that came before it. He was an Orangeman, and it was part of the Orange obligation not to wrong any man on account of his religious opinions. Very few members of the Corporation of Belfast were Orangemen, but he thought he spoke their sentiments when he said they did not attach any stigma or inflict any penalty on a Roman Catholic because he happened to belong to the Roman Catholic Church and reside in Belfast. But this Instruction had been moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He would like the House to listen to some words used by the hon. Member for East Mayo in Glasgow on the 16th March. He concluded his speech as follows—
  "They were disloyal and would remain disloyal until they got their freedom. When the compact was made between the two countries it would never be a compact between a slave and his master."
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond the question now before the House.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONsaid of course he would bow to the ruling of the Chair, not like the hon. Member for East Mayo, and he would not challenge the ruling of the Chair by a Resolution of the House as was proposed by the hon. Member for Waterford. Heonly desired to quote the speeches of the hon. Member in order to show the improper use to which the Ulster Hall might be put. He should, however, keep the quotations until the hon. Member for Waterford brought forward his Resolution with reference to the
  504
  Speaker's ruling. In conclusion he asked the House to continue to the Corporation of Belfast the power to manage their own affairs without any mandatory Instruction which would not be tolerated by any city in England or Scotland. He asked the House to refuse to sanction the Instruction on the ground that it would put a stigma on Belfast, and mark it out as the only city in the British Empire unworthy to be trusted with the management of its own affairs.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid if any justification were needed for the Instruction moved by his hon. friend it had been afforded by the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite. Every speaker who had opposed the Instruction had given the cue to the Corporation of Belfast to restrict the use of the Ulster Hall to those who agreed with the majority of the Corporation. No one could have listened to the speeches of those who addressed the House in opposition to the Motion, without being forced to the conclusion that every Member representing Belfast desired to keep the use of the Ulster Hall from the minority. From the Secretary to the Treasury they would have expected a statement of greater moderation, but even he had directly laid it down that the Corporation should be free to judge, and he further said religious and political questions were the most dangerous. If this were a case of there being a large number of halls available for public use in Belfast it would be a different matter, but this was a case of limiting the accommodation which all sections of the community hitherto enjoyed according to the rent they paid. It was the property of a syndicate, and as they paid the rent so all sections of the community could enjoy the use of it. Now the hall was to be taken over by the Corporation, that in itself was a limitation; and was it unreasonable to ask, having regard to all the circumstances of Belfast, that in this Bill should be a provision safeguarding the interests of every section of the community, and to insure that this Hall should not be used by one section and denied to another; that it should not be allowed for the use of the majority and denied to the minority of

  505
  the population in Belfast. The opposition taken to this Bill by hon. Members for Belfast was that this Instruction was an insult to the Corporation of Belfast, but behind the Corporation there were the people who brought pressure on that body. He thought this Instruction, if inserted in the Bill, would be of great assistance to the Corporation of Belfast, because if it were incorporated in the Bill it would place a reply in the hands of the Corporation which they could make to everybody who objected to the letting of the Hall. What would take place would be this. If the hon. Member for East Mayo were to be asked to address a meeting in Belfast, the Corporation would be threatened by the majority of opinion in Belfast, and there would be rioting in Belfast in one form and another, and a state of things which would make it impossible for those who were not in sympathy with the views of the majority to express their views to those with whom they were in sympathy in politics or religion. The whole strength of the argument in favour of the Motion lay in the fact that the accommodation for public meetings in the city of Belfast was being limited. He was not afraid of the action which the Corporation might take, because being a mixed body he believed their action would be fair, but he was afraid of the pressure that would, undoubtedly, be brought to bear upon them from the outside, and he thought the greatest argument in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo was in the character of the speeches made in opposition by hon. Members representing Belfast. He hoped the Instruction would be passed.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid that, from the point of view of an outsider, what struck him as being so remarkable was that so much time should be taken up by this discussion simply because the Nationalists were afraid of the Belfast people treating them as they (the Nationalists) had treated everybody else. That appeared to him to be the exact position. He could not help being
  struck by what he had read only the other day, that one of the local authorities of Cork was so tyrannical that they would not allow the family of a man who had died a loyal servant to his country, to put a tombstone on his grave. [Cries of name the authority.] He could give the necessary information, but no doubt hon. Members were perfectly aware of the circumstances. The question in dispute did not concern him, but it seemed to him an extraordinary Instruction and he thought the House ought to regard it with great suspicion, especially as it had been moved by those who had boycotted everybody all over Ireland who did not agree with their views.
  MR. JOYCEsaid he should not have intervened in the debate but for the serious charge that had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Belfast (Sir James Haslett) against the city of Limerick. Such charges were flung broadcast at Nationalist Members sitting in this House, but when proof was asked for it was not forthcoming. The hon. Baronet had said that no one who was not in sympathy with the politics and religion of Limerick could get a hall there. It was absolutely untrue, it was only when political firebrands came to Limerick that they ran them out of the city, and they would, always would, run them out by the blessing of God. He thought it would be better if hon. Members opposite confined themselves to refuting the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and did not make these baseless charges.
  MR. SHEEHANindignantly repudiated the statement made by the hon. Member for North Islington, which he said was absolutely incorrect.
  (5.33.) Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes,. 248. (Division List No. 116.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Asher, Alexander

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Perks, Robert William

  Bell, Richard

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Blake, Edward

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rea, Russell

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rigg, Richard

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Caldwell, James

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Carew, James Laurence

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington)

  Roche, John

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Runciman, Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Logan, John William

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Arthur, William (Corn wall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Cann, James

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dillon, John

  M'Govern, T.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kean, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

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

  Field, William

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Grant, Corrie

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whit-taker, Thomas Palmer

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Dowd, John

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Young, Samuel

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Malley, William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Mara, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Holland, William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Big wood, James

  Anstruther, H. T.

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

  Bill, Charles

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Bond, Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Arrol, Sir William

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Brassey, Albert

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Brymer, William Ernest

  508

  509

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Butcher, John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Purvis, Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Helder, Augustus

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Randles, John S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Chamberlain, Rt. hon. J. (Birm.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Horner, Frederick William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Round, James

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rutherford, John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Knowles, Lees

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H.

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

  Doughty, George

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

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

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

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Garfit, William

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Max well, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm.

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Willis, Sir Frederick

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Mitchell, William

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

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

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hain, Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas E.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Younger, William

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Parker, Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir James Haslett and Mr. Wolff.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Percy, Earl

  CENTRAL ARGENTINE AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time and passed, with Amendments.

  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL
  (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed.

  WEST HAM GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [LORDS],
    SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [LORDS],
      STREET URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [LORDS].
      Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  HAMILTON GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
    BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL [LORDS].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  WREXHAM WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LEYLAND AND FARINGTON GAS BILL.
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

  CLEETHORPES IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House, that, in his opinion, the Cleethorpes Improvement Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Private Bill.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Sir ROBERT GUNTERreported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, at the meeting of the Committee this day, a communication was received from Mr. Partington, one of the members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of illness, to attend the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the Isle of Wight Central Railway Company to raise further moneys." [Isle of Wight Central Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal the Deed of Constitution, Charters, and Acts of the Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society, and to consolidate their provisions or some of them with Amendments; to confer further powers on that Society; and for other purposes." [Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords.]
  And also a Bill, intituled "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Street to construct Waterworks for the supply of the urban district; and for other purposes." (Street Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords.]

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Larkhall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIEE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Hitchin, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATIKG OF LAND VALUES.
  Petitions for legislation: From Ashton-under-Lyne and Dewsbury; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: From Frome and Barrow-in-Furness; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Kelso, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF IN TOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bradford; Kirkstall; and Hitchin; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
  Petition from Kirkham, for the conclusion of peace; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONTEMPT OF COURT (IRELAND) (PERSONS COMMITTED).
  Return [presented 16th April]. to be printed, [No. 145.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) AUDITORS.
  Return [presented 16th April] to be printed. [No. 146.]
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
  Return presented, relative there to [ordered 10th April, Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 14 7.]
  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th January; Mr Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 48.]
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd February, Mr. Glbson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 140.]
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 10th April, 1902, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Administrative Examiner (Endowed Schools) under the Board of Education professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the pubic service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE RETORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2763 to 2767 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WARS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND CHINA (COST AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the estimated amount of War Charges in South Africa and China which will be incurred up to 31st March, 1903; (2) how these charges have been or will be met; and (3) how the money borrowed has been raised."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Address for Return "showing the estimated position as regards capital expenditure of the several Railways and Irrigation Works under construction in India on the 31st day of March, 1902, and the proposed expenditure thereon during 1902–3."—(Mr. Price.)

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1902–3 (ARTICLES SUBJECT TO DUTY ON CORN AND MEAL).
  Copy ordered, "of Table showing the articles now being taxed with duty by the Customs Authorities under the Corn Duly Resolution of 14–15 April, 1902."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 150.]

(5.50) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Peace Negotiations.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner are still debarred from expressing any opinion to the Boer leaders upon the suggestion made by them in the course of the current negotiations; if so, will the Government, with the view of promoting the conclusion of peace, now give these noblemen greater discretion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I cannot at the present time make any statement on the subject of communications with the Boers.

  Sale of Boer Farms.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the policy of selling the farms of Boers on commando is still being carried out; whether, in the case of farms already sold, he has any information how the authorities in South Africa ascertained that the owners were alive and on commando at the time when such sales were made; and whether he will direct Lord Milner to hand over the proceeds of the sales of farms belonging to Boers who have fallen in the field to the widows and relatives.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any further sales have taken place since my reply to the Hon. Member for East Northamptonshire on the 8th of this month.† I cannot say what steps are taken by the local authorities to ascertain that the owners were alive and on commando, but this is a matter which may be safely left to Lord Milner. I am not aware that there have been any cases of the sale of farms belonging to Boers who have fallen in the field.

  Rhodesia Hut Tax.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  † See preceding volume, p. 1249.
  516
  the Colonies whether he is aware that the High Commissioner of South Rhodesia has sanctioned an ordinance imposing a tax of 10s. on each adult inmate of a hut; will he state what sum was formerly collected on each hut irrespective of the number of adult inmates, the amount which the new tax is estimated to produce; and whether the High Commissioner has acted on his own initiative in the matter, or under instructions from the Colonial Office.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The previous ordinance of 1894 imposed a tax of the same amount—10s. on each hut simply. I understand that the present tax is estimated to produce £105,000 for the year 1902–3. The tax was recommended by the Resident Commissioner and assented to by the High Commissioner with my authority.

  Case of Mr. Cartwright.
  MR. JOHN MORLKY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War for what length of time and under what conditions, after the expiry of his sentence, it is intended to detain Mr. Albert Cartwright in South Africa, on the ground that, if permitted to return to this country, he might disseminate anti-British opinions in Croat Britain.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Mr. Cartwright is detained under supervision. The period of such detention rests with the authorities in South Africa. If any sufficient undertaking can be given as to Mr. Cartwright's conduct in the event of his leaving South Africa, I will communicate with Lord Kitchener with a view to reconsidering his case.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform us what kind of conduct and what sort of particulars he desires on the satisfaction of which depends the granting of the release?
  MR. BRODRICK: I should regard an undertaking to avoid the course of conduct which has brought Mr. Cartwright to his present situation as probably a satisfactory one.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: What brought him into his present trouble was the publication of what was pronounced by a jury to be a seditions libel; Mr. Cartwright, I understand, will undertake not to publish another seditious libel; will that satisfy the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. BRODRICK: The question is a difficult one to deal with by question and answer, but obviously the authorities in South Africa, having had to condemn Mr. Cartwright for conduct which was of a very grave character from the point of view of the hostilities now proceeding, would desire to obtain some means of preventing the pursuance of the same action on the part of Mr. Cartwright, whether in South Africa or in this country.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that The Times published the very same libel, and will he export to South Africa everybody who holds the same opinion as Mr. Cartwright?

  Soldiers Killed in Railway Accidents.
  MR HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the widows, if any, of the soldiers who were killed in the recent disastrous railway accidents in South Africa will be treated in the same way in regard to pensions as if their husbands had fallen in action.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Yes, Sir.

  Pay of Imperial Yeomanry Serving at Home.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that there are more than 3,000 imperial Yeomen enlisted at 5s. a day now employed in England; and how long it is proposed to continue to pay soldiers serving at home on that scale.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to the replies which have been already given to my hon. friend on this subject. I am not prepared to send
  518
  these Yeomanry to South Africa till the Commander-in-Chief pronounces them fit.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the reply given to me by the noble Lord was that he did not know how many of these men remained serving at home, and that it is for that reason I have been compelled to put the Question down in its present form?
  MR. BRODRICK: The number varies from day to day.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Then, roughly.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILLYou are embarrassing the Government

  Remount Purchases.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the instructions given to officers buying horses abroad are the same as those given to officers purchasing in England, or whether the question of age and value are left to the discretion and judgment of every buyer.
  LORD STANLEY: The instructions are practically the same for all purchasing officers, and are not left to the discretion of individuals. The question of age is the same for all countries. The price is fixed according to the market value of the animals in each country as reported by the officer in charge of the purchasing operations to the Inspector General of Remounts.

  The Kilt in Scotch Regiments.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, before the new regulations were issued for the change of the distinctive dress of the Scotch regiments, the colonels and officers of each regiment were consulted.
  LORD STANLEY: It has already been explained to the House that there is no intention of abolishing the kilt.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: That docs not answer my Question. I asked whether the officers of the regiments have been consulted.
  LORD STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman asked, I think, with reference to the distinctive dress of the Scotch regiments, which I believe to be the kilt.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: Not necessarily.
  MR. WEIR: Were the colonels and other officers consulted?
  LORD STANLEY: In all questions as to the dress of regiments those who will be affected are always consulted.

  Registration of Soldiers' Letters.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that paragraph 38 of Army Order dated 1st May 1901, does not provide for the registration at War Office expense of letters containing money orders; and in view of the fact that on the 11th July last a letter addressed to a private in the 3rd Seaforth Highlanders containing a money order for upwards of £10, representing part of the money due to him on his regiment being disembodied, fell into the hands of some other person by whom the order was fraudulently cashed, will he consider the expediency of arranging for the registration of letters of value such as that indicated.
  LORD STANLEY: The attention of the Secretary of State for War has been drawn to this matter, and he is considering the best means of minimising the danger of improper payment.

  New Volunteer Regulations.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the new Volunteer Regulations will be promulgated.
  LORD STANLEY: I hope that the new conditions for efficiency will shortly be promulgated. A new book such as the "Volunteer Regulations" cannot be got ready very easily, but every effort shall be made to expedite its issue.

  New Volunteer Training Scheme.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of calling upon commanding officers of Metropolitan Volunteer battalions to supply the War Office with a statement as to the steps they have taken up to the present time to carry out the Volunteer training scheme now in force, and how far they have met with success.
  LORD STANLEY: Presumably officers commanding Metropolitan Volunteer corps are awaiting the issue of amended regulations before taking any steps.

  Transference of Volunteers.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that to obtain an authority for one Volunteer in one battalion in London to be attached temporarily to another battalion in Nottinghamshire, as laid down in Section 10, Part VIII. of Special Army Order of 27th November, 1901, it is necessary for the application to pass through the Home District, the North West District, the North Eastern District, the districts of Chester, York, Derby, and Newark, involving the signatures of twelve colonels, lieutenant colonels, and commanding officers, and a delay of twenty-four days; and whether this is required by the new decentralization system established last year.
  LORD STANLEY: Under existing regulations the authority is required of the general officers commanding the districts concerned, the officers commanding the regimental districts concerned, and the officers commanding the two Volunteer corps. This, however, is considered too cumbrous a procedure, and measures are being taken to simplify it.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that; under the old system there was simply needed an application from one corps to the other?
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of that.

  Discharges from Woolwich Arsenal.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been railed to the fact that, in addition to the number of discharges which have recently taken place from Woolwich Arsenal, no fewer than 171 have been effected during the past fortnight in the Rifle Shell Factory alone; and, seeing that a number of those discharged were men with long service, a score of them having served for more than twenty years and many for more than ten, whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to any further reduction of the working staff of the Woolwich Arsenal.
  LORD STANLEY: It has been decided to work the Shell Factory on day shift only, and consequently the redundant employees could no longer be given work. It is true that a few men of long service have been discharged, but the selection has been made with a proper consideration of time-keeping, efficiency, and general character.

  Crimean Veterans' Pensions.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any increase has been made during the past year in the daily payments to soldiers who served in the Crimean campaign; and, if so, what are the present authorised rates of pension.
  LORD STANLEY: Special increases of pension are being awarded to such soldiers. Each case is treated on its merits and in accordance with the extent of the disability from which the claimant is suffering. This information was recently published.

  Richmond Park and Volunteer Training.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain why the use of Richmond Park as an exercising ground is forbidden to any branch of His Majesty's regular or auxiliary forces, whereas all civilians are allowed the free use of the park for taking exercise, either on horseback or on foot, and whether, in view of the restricted facilities for giving practical training to Volunteer
  522
  corps in the Metropolitan area, and in view of the suitability of Richmond Park for this purpose, he will endeavour to obtain the necessary permission from the responsible authorities for the occasional use of this park as a military exercising ground.
  I beg at the same time to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state who is the authority responsible for the issue of regulations respecting the use of Richmond Park; what sum if any, is voted by the public for the maintenance of this park; and what are the specific objects for which this park is maintained at the public expense.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question, and perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to answer this and the next Question together. The rules for the management of Richmond Park, in accordance with the Parks Regulation Act of 1872, are made by the Ranger and the Commissioners of Works jointly. The sum voted out of public funds for the park last year was £5,030, but there are certain credits by way of receipts amounting to about £600 a year. The park is maintained out of moneys voted by Parliament for the general enjoyment of the public. To allow Richmond Park to be used as an exercise ground for troops would limit its enjoyment by the public, inasmuch as there would be a consider able risk of damage to the fine plantations, rhododendrons, and shrubs, as well as danger of injury to the deer and the wild birds, especially the herons, preserved in the interests of the public as one of the principal amenities of the park. A considerable area between the Sheen and Richmond Gates is already used, by permission, for Volunteer drills but though I am prepared to consider with the Ranger whether this area might be extended, I can hold out no hope of allowing the park generally to be used as an exercise ground.

  Navy Rations—Bread.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the

  523
  Admiralty is he aware that quantities o£ loaves of bread are thrown overboard and wasted by the crews of His Majesty's ships of war, so that in one port alone as many as fifty loaves of bread are seen floating about a ship at one time. Is he aware that, in consequence of the men not being allowed to take up savings in the shape of money allowances in the case of bread, as they are allowed to do for everything else, the messes habitually order more bread than they require and habitually throw overboard the excess on any one day so as to make room for fresh bread on the next day; and will the Admiralty consider the desirability of baking bread for the men of each ship on board the ship itself, as was done in H.M.S. "Centurion," when on the China Station, with success for four months, the ship's galley being used for the purpose; or, failing this, will the Admiralty allow the men to take up savings for bread as they do for beef.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Admiralty are not aware of the circumstance mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in respect to the issue of bread. Savings may be, and are, taken up in respect of bread; therefore the reason for the alleged waste does not exist. No information has been received at the Admiralty as to any special practice on board H.M.S. "Centurion," but the question of baking bread on board His Majesty's slips was fully considered by the Committee on Navy Rations, and it was recommended that the practice should not be adopted. This recomendation was approved by the Admiralty. In view of the fact that savings are allowed on bread, the action suggested in the last paragraph of my hon. friend's Question is not necessary.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With reference to the doubt suggested by the hon. Gentleman as to the accuracy of my information, will he make inquiry at Devonport and ascertain whether, in March last, more than fifty loaves were not seen floating round about one ship?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not suggest a doubt as to the hon. Gentleman's information. I say the Admiralty have no information as to the circumstances, and the suggested motive for waste does not exist.
  MR. KEARLEY: Shall we have an opportunity afforded us of discussing the Departmental Vote on the Victualling Vote? Will the hon. Gentleman put it down first?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is not within my province to give any pledge, but I believe a pledge has been given in regard to another very important Vote, which is entitled to consideration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Gentleman says he has no knowledge of what was done on the "Centurion." Will he kindly inquire?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, inquiry shall be made. The commanding officer did not happen to be at the Admiralty today, or I would have asked him.

  H.M.S. "Diadem's" Boilers.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what is the nature of the repairs to the Belleville boilers of H.M.S "Diadem," if such repairs involve new boilers, and if tenders are being asked from private firms for the work; if so, what are the quoted amounts of each firm, and what is the tenour of the specification on which the tenders are based.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: Will the Secretary to the Admiralty also state the causes which have led to he withdrawal of the "Diadem" from the Channel Squadron; whether this vessel has been ordered to be re-boilered; and, if so, will he state what make of boilers she was originally fitted with when she hoisted her pennant on joining the Channel Squadron, and what will be the cost of the re-boilering.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The work to be done on the boilers of the

  525
  "Diadem" is the repair of the boiler casings, and is part of the general refit of the ship after three and a half years service. The repairs will not involve new boilers. It is proposed to carry out the repairs by contract. Tenders will be invited as soon as the list of the principal items of the work has been received from the Dockyard. It is intended to adopt the principle of working upon a schedule of prices.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: May I ask if this new vessel is absolutely unfit for sea?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: At the present moment, certainly. Most vessels are, after being three and a half years in commission.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that vessels have run twenty years without requiring such expenditure?

  H.M.S. "Spartiate"—Repairs.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will say what is the nature of the repairs to H.M.S. "Spartiate" which prevents her trials; when will she be ready for trial; what has been the cost of these repairs; and if this cost is borne by the contractors for the machinery or by the country.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The delay in completion of H.M.S. "Spartiate" is due to the necessity for replacing the Condenser Tubes which were found to be defective and unsuitable. New tubes have been supplied by the manufacturers at a reduced price. The cost of the work will be borne by the Crown, as the machinery contractors are in liquidation. It will not be possible to state the cost of the work on the condensers as apart from the cost of other work until the complete accounts of the expenditure have been supplied. It is expected that the ship will be completed and able to resume her trials by the end of the month. If the hon. Member will repeat his Question with regard to the cost of the replacing of the Condenser Tubes at a later date. I will endeavour to give him the information he requires.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it simply the condenser which causes the trouble?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, that is so.

  The Dardanelles and Foreign War-ships.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information showing that the Government of Russia contemplate taking steps to obtain a revision of the Treaties of 1841, 1856, and 1871, whereby the passage of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles is prohibited to Foreign ships of war, with a view of obtaining the removal of the prohibitions for Russian vessels of war only, and not for the vessels of other Powers parties to the Treaty; and if any Papers on the subject can be laid upon the Table.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The answer is in the negative.

  Uganda Railway.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the total amount of money expended on the Uganda Railway up to the 31st March in this year.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The total amount of money expended on the Uganda Railway up to the 31st ultimo was £4,982,468 3s. 2d., of which £4,907,239 19s. 4d. was from the Imperial Grant and the balance from receipts from traffic accounts and a few other small miscellaneous receipts.

  Teintsin Negotiations.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether conditions with regard to the handing back of territory at Teintsin have been agreed upon by the Allied Commanders, one of the conditions being that Chinese troops are not to approach within thirty kilometres either of the Native city or of the railway, the conditions also containing stipulations with regard to the hills west of Peking and Chinese warships at Taku;

  527
  and, if so, whether the British Minister at Peking has been consulted upon and has given his consent to any such conditions.
  At the request of my hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division, may I at the same time ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Commander at Teintsin was authorised by His Majesty's Government to insist on the conditions announced in connection with the proposed handing back of the City of Teintsin to Chinese jurisdiction; and whether His Majesty's Government will facilitate the transfer by supporting a modification of the demands.
  LORD CRANBORNE: We have not yet received information as to the details of the recommendations which have been made by the Military Commanders to the diplomatic body at Peking, but it was expected that these would have been submitted about the 14th instant, and a Report no doubt will be made by Sir E. Satow after they have been discussed by the Representatives of the Powers. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will put a further Question on a later day.

  Sugar Bounties Conference.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to the recent Conference on Sugar Bounties at Brussels will be presented to Parliament.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The Papers will be distributed on Tuesday next.
  MR. BRYCE: Will they be laid in dummy?
  LORD CRANBORNE: No they will be distributed.

  British Trade in the Philippines.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the assurances given by the United States Government to His Majesty's Government, on the annexation of the Philippines, that no preferential tariffs should be imposed
  528
  detrimental to any old established trades between this Country and the Philippines, he proposes calling the attention of the United States Government to the fact that a preferential tariff, which will be of moment to the rope industry in the United Kingdom, has been enacted in favour of American manufacturers competing with this country.
  LORD CRANBORNE: As I have already stated general representations were made to the United States on behalf of British Trade in the Philippines in 1898. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington will be instructed to draw the attention of the United States Government to the effect upon the rope industry in this country of the exemption of Manilla fibre, exported to the United States from export duty in the Archipelago.

  Italy and Tripoli.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has any information of a projected Italian military expedition to Tripoli; whether His Majesty's Government has inquired from the Italian Government the object of the special military preparations referred to by Signor Prinnetti in the Italian Chamber: and whether instructions will be issued to the Mediterranean Fleet to prevent the landing of any Italian military expedition in Tripoli.
  LORD CRANBOKNE: His Majesty's Government have no such information.

  Parochial Administration in Barbados.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of the State for the Colonies whether he can sec his way to direct local inquiry to be held in Barbados as to the system of parochial administration, rating, and administration of poor relief, as well as into the working of the Agricultural Aids Act.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware on what particular grounds inquiry should be held into the subjects mentioned in the right hon. Member's Question, but if he will inform me of the

  529
  special points to which he wishes to call attention. I shall be happy to communicate with the Governor.

  Incidence of the Death Duties.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that when, in accordance with The Finance Act, 1894, the fixed duty of £2 10s. has been paid on an estate not exceeding £500 gross, and when, on the subsequent discovery of further property raising the estate to a value of over £500, that further property is brought into account by the executors and the full duty on the whole estate paid, or 2 or more per cent. on the amended account, no return is made of the £2 10s. originally paid; and whether he will consider the propriety of so amending The Finance Act, 1894, as to cause credit to be allowed for duties already paid under conditions superseded by a subsequent account and payment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EN-CHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am not aware that any hardship arises under the present law in cases where there is a will and probate, and to alter the law might encourage wrongful applications under Section 16 (1) of the Finance Act, 1894, in order to evade the larger fees which are payable on ordinary applications for probate. But the matter is a very technical one, and if the hon. Member will send me a statement of his reasons for desiring an alteration of the law, and any suggestions he may like to make as to what alteration should be made, it shall be considered before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

  Income Tax Abatements.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total number of persons in the United Kingdom paying income tax; how many of the total pay on the full amount of their declared incomes and how many pay subject to abatements; and it he can state what proportion of the total tax was paid subject to abatements for the year ending 31st December, 1901.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The number of abatements allowed in the year ending 31st March. 1901, the latest year for which figures are available, was about 600,000. It is not possible to say what portion of the total tax was paid by the 600,000 persons in question, nor what the total number of persons paying income tax was in that, or any other year. For it must be remembered that about two-thirds of the income tax is collected, not from the individuals who finally enjoy the income, but at the source from which the income is derived. It is therefore impossible ever, to say from the income tax returns either what the number of income tax payers may be, or what is the aggregate income of individual taxpayers.

  Yield of Income Tax in Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the yield per penny of Income Tax in Ireland in the years 1901–1902, 1891–1892.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In 1891–2, the yield per penny of Income Tax collected in Ireland, was approximately, £92,000. For 1901–02 the figures cannot yet be given, but for the year 1900–01 the figure was approximately £81,000. The diminution in yield is due to the abatements on small incomes accorded in 1894 and 1898.

  Income Tax Remissions.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was originally assessed, 1901–1902, under Schedule B, Income Tax in England; what remissions have been made; and how much it is estimated collections under Schedule B will realise in England.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The exact figures for 1901–1902 will not be available until the autumn. The yield of the Income Tax under Schedule B in England, for the year 1901–02 may be estimated at £190,000.
  MR. O'MARA: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the remissions for the year?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.

  War Terminal Charges.
  MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount included in the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1901–02 for terminal charges on the conclusion of the war in South Africa, including cost of transport for the returning troops and gratuities to the soldiers.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The amount was £10,528,000.
  MR. McCRAE: Would the right hon. Gentleman state what sum if any is included for this purpose in the Estimates for the current year.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have already stated that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War said he did not include it in the Estimates for the current year.

  New Budget Proposals—Increase of Stamp Duties.
  Mr. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state how much he anticipates to collect from Ireland, England, and Scotland, respectively, by the increase proposed in the stamp duties.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On the basis of the figures for the existing duty the increase may, by way of estimate, be distributed thus:—

  England

  …

  …

  £434,000

  Scotland

  …

  …

  39,000

  Ireland

  …

  …

  27,000

  £500,000

  Adhesive Stamps on Cheques.
  Mr. CROMBIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that cheques drawn on paper which has not an embossed stamp, but to which an ordinary adhesive stamp has been attached, are sometimes returned, alter being cashed, without the adhesive stamp being obliterated; and whether the obligation to obliterate the stamp lies with the drawer of the cheque or with the banker.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: under the provisions of Section 34, sub-Section (1) of the Stamp Act, 1891, the drawer of a cheque stamped by means of an adhesive stamp is the person with whom lies the responsibility for obliterating the stamp. Unless he does so the cheque is not to be deemed duly stamped. I have no knowledge of the extent to which there may be failure to observe the law in this respect.

  New Customs Duties.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposals of the Government to tax all kinds of imported grain and flour include linseed and cotton-seed cakes.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not proposed to include linseed and cottonseed in the list of articles liable to the new duty, and linseed and cotton-seed cake would be similarly excluded, provided no dutiable article is used in the manufacture.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether imported corn used in the United Kingdom for distillation purposes will be exempted from the new Customs duties in the same manner as molasses are exempt from the sugar duties when used in distillation.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No. Sir.
  MR. WARR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether locust beans, which are low-priced articles chiefly used in the manufacture of cake for fattening cattle, fall within the terms of the Resolution.
  SIR. HICKS BEACH: Yes. Sir.
  MR. CHALLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the customs import duty of 3d. per cwt. on grain will be refunded on all grain used for distillation.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have already answered that Question.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: Is it intended that grain so used shall pay customs as well as excise duty.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what goods are included under the heading of grains, and flours, and meals; and whether it includes all cereals such as peas, haricots, lentils, rice, and also manufactured goods, such as macaroni, semolina, starch, tapioca, sago, and arrowroot. Will he also say whether bran is subject to duty.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The articles specified in the Question are included. I answered the hon. Member's Question the other day,† and I do not know why he puts it again.
  MR. LOUGH: Because the right hon. Gentleman complained that he had no notice.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Perhaps it will save trouble if I undertake to lay on the Table a schedule setting forth these particulars.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: May I ask why rice is included on this occasion, whereas it was not included before.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We propose to tax rice because rice is a grain.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: It was not taxed on the former occasion.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is true that it was not included for taxation in the schedule of the Act of 1860, but it was taxed up to that time.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether linseed, cotton seed, rape, and other seeds, will be included under the Corn, etc, Resolution.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not in contemplation to include linseed, cotton seed, and rape-seed, in the list of article; chargeable with the new duty.
  † See page 282.
  MR. BAIRD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether bonâ fide contracts entered into some time ago and cargoes afloat will be exempt from the duty on corn; and if not, will seller or buyer be liable on sales made on conditions termed delivered into warehouse.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The answer to this question is No. The position of grain contracts is precisely that of sugar contracts last year, and the matter is governed by Section 10 of the Finance Act of last year.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to place a countervailing duty on foreign beef and pork to enable the British farmer to compete with beef and pork fed on untaxed grain.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir. The British farmer can easily feed his stock with home grown grain if he prefers it.

  Grain and Flour Imports to Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state how many hundredweights of grain and flour respectively were imported into Ireland during the last financial year.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The amounts imported were—Grain, 16,294,030 cwts.; flour, 2,386,610 cwts.

  Bank Note Forgeries.
  MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent bank note forgeries, he will have some of the spurious notes placed in the library, in order to afford Members an opportunity of inspecting them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have no means of giving effect to the hon. Member's suggestion, I nor do I think that if I had it would be desirable to do so.

  Automatic Gambling Machines.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the case of a boy sentenced on Tuesday for embezzling 8s. for use in an automatic gambling machine; and whether he will take steps, by ordering special action by the police, and by the public prosecutor, or if necessary, by legislation, to put a stop to the temptations thus placed in the way of young persons and others.
  MR. RITCHIE: I said in reply to a Question on this subject on the 13th of last month, that the keeping of these machines had been the subject of action by the police. Since that date there have been at least two prosecutions by the Commissioner of Police, resulting in the conviction of the defendants, but in one of them the magistrate agreed to state a case for the consideration of the High Court. The matter is therefore sub judice. I can only say that, if the present law should be found inadequate, I will take care that the question of further measures to deal with this pernicious evil, shall receive consideration.

  Established Church (Livings and Population) Returns.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENS (): I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether he will grant the Returns relating to the Established Church of England and Wales, notices for which stand on today's Paper, †
  † The following are the Returns referred to:—"Return showing the number of Livings in the Established Church of England and Wales of which (a) the Population exceeds 10,000 and the annual net income, as defined by The Incumbents' Resignation Act, 1887. section 5, exceeds £1,000; (b) the Population exceeds 8,000, but not 10,000, and the annual net income exceeds £800; (c) the Population exceeds 7,000, but not 8,000, and the annual net income exceeds £700; (d) the Population exceeds 6,000, but not 7,000, and the annual net income exceeds £600; (e) the Population exceeds 5,000, but not 6,000, and the annual net income exceeds £500; (f) the Population is 5,000, or less, and the annual net income exceeds £400; and, approximately, the total annual excess of such incomes over the scale named."
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: This Question is one which should not be addressed, in the first instance, to the Ecclesiastical Commission, but to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Church Property Re-turn of 1887 cost £4,000, and took four years to prepare, and a substantial part of the cost was provided by the Home Office. The information sought is not in the possession of the Commission, and the Commissioners have not the means of obtaining it on the lines suggested in the Question. The hon. Member can find much of the information which he desires to obtain, in such publications as "Crockford," "The Clergy List." and "The Official Year-Book of the Church of England." I am unwilling to move the Commissioners to incur the large expense of preparing these Returns, which would throw great labour upon an already fully-employed staff.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: May I ask how far the Ecclesiastical Commissioners consider that the information contained in the suggested publications can be treated as official?
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: They cannot be relied on entirely, as they are not the Returns of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

  Richard Cloudesley Charity.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the trustees of the Richard Cloudesley Charity have expressed to him their approval of his proposals for the distribution of the annual income of the Charity: whether the trustees have prepared their scheme, and when will it be presented to the High Court of Justice; and, if not, can he explain the cause of the delay; and
  "Return showing the number of Livings in the Established Church of England and Wales, (a) of which the annual net income, as defined by the Incumbents' Resignation Act, 1887, section 5 is less than £400 but not less than £300; (b) of which the annual net income is less than £300 but not less than £200; (c) of which the annual net income is less than £200 but not less than £100; (d) of which the annual net income is £100 or less; und in how many cases the Population of such Livings as thus classified exceeds the scale of Population named in the Return, Church of England and Wales (Livings and Population)."
  whether he will arrange that a copy of the scheme will be submitted to the Town Council of Islington for its opinion before it is settled by the High Court of Justice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FIXLAY,): The trustees have approved in substance the suggestions made by me with regard to this Charity, which have been already communicated to the Borough Council. The scheme will be brought before the Court as soon as possible, and copies will be sent to the Borough Council of Islington, and other parties concerned for their information before it is finally settled.

  Lady Poor Law Schools Inspector.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take into consideration the desirability of appointing lady inspectors for the purpose of examining children in workhouses and certified Poor Law schools.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): There is a lady inspector who visits the Poor Law and certified schools in the Metropolitan district, but it has not been deemed practicable to extend the arrangement to the rest of the country.

  Merchant Taylors' School.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the attention of the Board of Education has been called to the dismissal without cause assigned, by the Court of Governors of Merchant Taylors School, on the recommendation of the headmaster, of three assistant masters of twenty-five, twenty-three, and twelve years service respectively: whether the practice of the Court of Governors to give pensions to masters who are not otherwise provided for has been in this case departed from; and if so, whether any reasons have been given for such departure from the usual practice; whether the Board of Education has any jurisdiction over the school by reason of its endowment,
  538
  and will make any representation to the Court of Governors on the subject; and whether the Board will consider the desirability of inserting in future in schemes for endowed schools a clause giving to assistant masters reasonable security against arbitrary dismissal.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg at the same time to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Merchant Taylors' School has ever been regarded by the Board of Education as an endowed school; whether the Governors have the right in their absolute discretion to require the retirement of any assistant master if they consider it to be for the good of the school; whether it has ever been the practice of the Court to gram pensions to masters except in very exceptional cases; whether the Court framed some years ago a superannuation scheme for the masters of the school; and whether two of the three masters who have recently retired preferred not to join such scheme and upon retirement received gratuities, and the third master, who had joined it, received upon retirement a sufficient sum to enable him to meet the annual payments under the scheme.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Board of Education have no official information as to the statements in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Questions of the hon. Member for the Eye Division and the statements of the hon. Member for Salford. Paragraph 3 of the first Question asks the opinion of the Board of Education on a point of law which can probably be decided only by an appeal to the Courts. The Board of Education would make no representation till assured of its jurisdiction. As to paragraph 4, the Board of Education have never yet succeeded in devising any plan of appeal which could in their judgment be properly inserted in a scheme.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the first paragraph of my Question, as

  539
  to whether the school has ever been regarded by the Board of Education as an endowed school.
  SIR JOHN GORST: That is the very question upon which the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners depends—whether it is an endowed school or not. It is a question full of intricacies, and nobody can with certainty say if this is an endowed school, until an appeal to the Courts is decided. During such a state of uncertainty, the Board has formed no opinion at all on the matter.
  MR. STEVENSON: Does the Board of Education propose to take any steps to ascertain the limits and nature of the jurisdiction of the Board, if any.
  SIR JOHN GORST: No. The Board of Education knows the limits of its jurisdiction; but there is a nice point of law involved, whether a particular school is an endowed school or not, and there is no particular reason why the Board should take steps to determine this point, until a question arises on which the jurisdiction of the Board is necessary.

  Organising Expenditure on Secondary Education.
  MR. McLAREN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will obtain from the County Councils of England and Wales information as to the amount spent annually by each Council under the head of technical or secondary education in the salaries and expenses of organising secretaries or other paid officials, other than teachers, employed for the purpose of establishing or maintaining schools or classes for every branch of education.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The information furnished by the Councils to the Board of Education will be found in the Technical Instruction Returns presented to Parliament.

  Returns of Agricultural Prices.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he
  540
  can now arrange for the official Returns of prices received under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, to be published weekly instead of quarterly.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The prices named in the Question are only a small part even of the general agricultural prices in Scotland dealt with by Lord Mansfield's Committee. We are at present considering a scheme for dealing with the prices of all leading agricultural products in the whole of Great Britain, and I could not oanticipate such a general treatment of the subject by dealing with so small a part of it as the hon. Member suggests.

  Importation of Canadian Cattle.
  DR. FAQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in consideration of the opinion of competent authorities that pleuro-pneumonia has never existed in Canada, and the admitted fact that the United States has been free from this disease for three years, he will reconsider the advisability of restoring the introduction of Canadian store cattle into the United Kingdom, so that cattle-feeders can take full advantage of the threatened storage in the supply of beef from abroad.
  MR. HANBURY: I do not know what competent authorities the hon. Member refers to, but, in the opinion of the officers of the Board, pleuro-pneumonia undoubtedly existed among the cattle coming from Canada up to 1892; nor do I know on what the hon. Member bases his fear of a shortage of beef supply. There was a considerable increase in the quantity of beef imported into this country last year, and our information does not show any diminution of stocks in the United States. I see no reason whatever for reversing a policy which was deliberately embodied in an Act of Parliament so recently as the year 1896.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that one of the first authorities in Europe has stated that pleuro-pneumonia has never existed in Canada?
  MR. HANBURY: That may be so, but it is entirely in conflict with the opinion of our own authorities.

  Importation of Diseased Horses.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can inform the House of the result of his inquiries as to the importation into this country of horses suffering from infectious diseases; and whether any steps are to be taken to check the spread of disease by horses which are imported into this country.
  MR. HANBURY: I am glad to inform my hon. friend that the inquiries made by our own Inspectors at the Port of London, and by the local authorities at various other large ports of Great Britain, have shown that practically no cases of influenza have been discovered among imported horses since the year 1900.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the arrangements for the protection of horse-breeders in this country against the importation of disease are of a permanent character?
  MR. HANBURY: In view of there being so very few cases that the local authorities have in some cases ceased inspection, I am afraid I cannot undertake, on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, to incur expenditure at all the ports for this purpose.

  Horse Breeding in England.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will state what steps the Board proposes to take to encourage the breeding of Army horses in the United Kingdom.
  MR. HANBURY: I am in communication with the War Office on this subject, but cannot as yet give the hon. Member the information he asks.

  Boy Labour in the Civil Service.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg-to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called
  542
  to the effects of the system of procuring economical labour for the various Departments of the Civil Service in London, by the formation of the class of boy writers, who, when dismissed at the age of twenty years, find difficulty in obtaining employment in commercial firms by reason of their training; and, seeing that the majority of these boy writers are drawn from Ireland, and have only wages of 14s. a week at present for their maintenance in London, whether he will consider the advisability of giving these youths increased wages and of providing them with subsequent employment after they have attained the age of 20 years.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not aware that the training of boy copyists stands in the way of their subsequent employment by private firms. Less than 25 per cent. continue to serve till the age limit of twenty, and of these a large portion subsequently enter the permanent service, owing to their privilege of competing at a later age than other candidates. I think the minimum pay of 14s. a week rather low. It has already been decided to raise it to 15s.

  Commission on Postal Orders.
  MR. McLAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the additional stamp on cheques, he will give further facilities for the convenient transmission of small sums by means of postal notes, by reducing the commission payable on sums of. £1 and under, and by issuing books of postal orders, with counterfoils attached, so as to enable a record to be kept by those who have to send large numbers of small remittances.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General does not consider it necessary to reduce the commissions payable upon postal orders, as the present rates appear to him to be reasonable. The question of supplying books of postal orders with counterfoils attached has received attention on many occasions; but the Postmaster General sees no reason to think that there would be such

  543
  a demand on the part of the public for this convenience as would justify him in adopting the proposal.

  Coronation Celebrations in Scotland.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Parish Councils in England are to be permitted to meet the expenses of the Coronation celebrations out of a compulsory rate; and whether he will give orders that a similar permission is given to the Scotch Parish Councils, should they desire to exercise it.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The English Local Government Board in the case of local authorities, whose accounts are subject to audit by the Board's auditors, have power, under the Local Authorities (Expenses) Act, 1887, to authorise the charging of such expenditure against the statutory rates. Neither the Secretary for Scotland nor the Local Government Board for Scotland possess a similar power. I would like to add, for the information of the hon. Member and the local authorities in whose interests he puts the Question, that, in the opinion of the Secretary for Scotland as advised, any rate or contribution, for the purpose aimed at, must accordingly be of a voluntary nature, clear intimation being given on the assessment notice or invitation to subscribe that payment is not compulsory.

  Hospitals in Scotch Congested Districts.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Secretary for Scotland has stated that he would not be disinclined to amend The Congested District (Scotland) Act, 1897, in such a manner as to provide for the establishment and maintenance of hospitals in congested areas, will he state whether he can arrange to introduce legislation on the subject this session.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: With reference to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 15th March, 1901 †, the Secretary for Scotland is not yet in a position to say what steps, if any, he can take in the matter.
  †See (4) Debates, xci., 86.

  Earl of Kenmare and Police Protection.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the exact amount of money paid in salary and otherwise to the policeman stationed at Killarney House for the past ten years; and if, having regard to the crimelessness of the district as testified at recent quarter sessions, this policeman will now be withdrawn.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This Question is substantially a repetition of one put to me by the hon. Member on the 10th June last.† I have nothing to add to the reply given by me on that occasion.
  MR. MURPHY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the crimelessness of that district has been recently proved by the presentation of white gloves to the Recorder?
  MR. WYNDHAM'Sreply was not-heard in the gallery.

  Extra Police at Kilmactigue, Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of extra police at present stationed in Kilmactigue, County Sligo; and whether, in view of the crimelessness of the district, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing these police at an early date.
  MR WYNDHAM: The number of extra police is five. The district is not free from crime, as alleged. On the contrary, there have been several agrarian outrages committed in the locality within the last twelve months, and individuals have been, and are at the present moment, the victims of intimidation and boycotting. The extra police are employed in protecting the persons and property of these persons.
  MR. O'DOWD: Who are these persons?
  [No answer was given.]
  † See (4) Debates, xciv., 1468.

  Rooskey (Mayo) Band.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rooskey (County Mayo) band, whilst out for practice on Christmas Day, was set upon by a force of police who assaulted the bandsmen and made determined attempts to break the instruments, which had to be removed for safety across the county, Mearing to Moylough, county Sligo; and, seeing that the police of Chaffpool have instituted a search and are still engaged in a search for these instruments, will he say on whose initiative they are acting, or whether it is with the sanction of the Irish Government that such action is being taken by the police.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Rooskey band went out on Christmas Day, but the remaining allegations in the Question are without foundation.
  MR. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that the Moylough men are allowed to perform on that band, whilst its owners are denied that right.
  [No answer was given.]

  Prisoners under Criminal Law and Procedure Act.
  Mr. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that defendants accused of the same offences under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, have been sentenced in Tipperary to hard labour, in Mayo to be treated as ordinary prisoners and without hard labour, and in Roscommon to be treated as first-class misdemeanants; whether he will assent to a Parliamentary Consular Return, setting forth the treatment given to political prisoners in other countries; and whether he is prepared to take steps to assimilate the treatment of political prisoners in Ireland to the treatment of political prisoners in other civilised countries.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In some cases the conditions attaching to imprisonment for offences committed under the Statute mentioned have been varied on appeal. It does not rest with me to grant or
  546
  refuse the Return indicated in the second query. All prisoners in Ireland are being classified as in England. But no separate class has been, or will be, instituted, to distinguish persons convicted under that statute.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a separate class has been in existence ever since the Coercion Act of 1887?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of it; and since the hon. Gentleman asks the Question, I would ask him to indicate to me on what he bases it. The ordinary prison rules are in force, and I am certain that no special class has been instituted.
  MR. DILLON: I will repeat the Question on Monday. I base it on personal experience.
  MR. FLYNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to treat political opponents as criminals in Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is free speech to be treated as a crime in Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Irish National School Teachers' Pensions.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to National School Teachers (Ireland) (Pension Fund), notice for which stands on today's Paper.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The details for which the hon. Member asks are given each year in the Report of the Commissioners of National Education. The latest available Report is that for 1900 (Cd. 704 of 1901) and the information will be found at page 27.

  Irish Emigration.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he is aware

  547
  that the drain of Irish emigration still continues; and what steps it is proposed to take to prevent the further decrease of the population of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There were fewer emigrants from Ireland during the past three months, as compared with the corresponding period of 1901. The official returns do not show to what causes emigration is due.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cure this admitted evil by coercion?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Rathkeale Labourers' Scheme.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what is the cause of the delay in issuing the first instalment of the loan for the labourers' scheme in the Rathkeale Union in the county of Limerick; and when will it be issued.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The application in this case is at present before the Treasury.

  Applications for Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent sittings of the Privy Council a number of applications for labourers' cottages were rejected on appeal, though recommended in the first instance by the Local Government Board inspector; and can he state what additional evidence was brought forward by the Petitioners before the Privy Council when the decisions of the Local Government Board were reversed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The objections urged by the petitioners were disclosed in the petitions, and evidence of the objections was given before, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Committee, in disallowing the applications acted in pursuance of its statutory powers. The hearing was public.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Will the petitioners be allowed to produce additional evidence—additional, I mean, to that produced at the first hearing?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the objections urged by the petitioners were disclosed in their petitions, and I infer from that that no further objections can be raised.

  Tipperary Coronership.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the person about to be appointed to the office of coroner in Tipperary will be a coroner for the entire county of Tipperary, and entitled to act in the south riding of that county for the adjoining district, that the payment of the salary of the coroner is a charge upon the entire county, and that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has recently issued his writ for the election of a coroner in the north riding of Tipperary by the County Council of that riding; and seeing that the County Council of the south riding of the county is entitled to take part in the two elections, whether instructions to this effect will be given to the high sheriff and North and South Riding County Councils: and, having regard to the fact that intimation cannot now be given of a vacancy in the office of coroner created by death, the twentieth sections of the Act 9 and 10 Vic, cap. 37, having been repealed by the Local Government Act, will he state with whom the responsibility rests of giving official notice of the vacancy to the County Council, and will he see that the person elected to the office of coroner is possessed of the necessary legal qualifications.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Question contained in the first paragraph is not free from difficulty, but in the opinion of the Irish Law Officers the Writ issued by the Lord Chancellor, is having regard to the provisions of the 14th, 68th, and 69th Sections of the Local Government Act and the Orders made thereunder, in proper form. The Council of the

  549
  North Riding will elect and pay the coroner and assign to him a district within the North Riding. The Sheriff has nothing to do with the election, and the County Council have had full notice of the Order removing the coroner. It is the duty of the County Council to see that the person elected is duly qualified.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With whom does the responsibility rest of giving the County Councils notice?
  MR. ATKINSON: They had before them the notice of the Order removing the coroner, and also the writ ordering the appointment of his successor.

  Appeal from Conviction Under Crimes Act (Ireland).
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings before County Court Judge Moore, at Thurles, on the 8th instant, in connection with the appeal of Mr. R. A. Corr against sentences which amounted to seven months imprisonment with hard labour; is he aware, on counsel for the accused making an application that the sentences should run concurrently and the hard labour should be removed, of the intervention by the prosecuting counsel and of the terms in which he referred to the prisoner; and whether the Law Officers in Ireland will communicate their views as to this gentleman's conduct.
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There was only one appeal before the County Court Judge. In this the Judge confirmed the conviction of three months imprisonment with hard labour. The accused, at the time of the hearing of the appeal, was in custody under a conviction for an earlier and entirely different offence for which he had been sentenced to one months imprisonment with hard labour. The prosecuting counsel, Mr. Morphy, reports to me that the observations made by him to the Court on the occasion referred to, were made in reply to the application of the prisoner's counsel that the accused should be made a firstclass misdemeanant. Mr. Morphy merely
  550
  submitted that having regard to the gravity of the offence the accused should not be made a first-class misdemeanant. He adds that the report in the newspapers is inaccurate. I entirely approve of this action on the part of the prosecuting counsel.
  MR. FLYNN: Arising out of the answer I should like to ask whether, the conviction having been secured before the County Court Judge, counsel had any right to interfere with and insult this unfortunate man's application.
  MR. ATKINSON: My learned friend reports to me that he did not insult the man. As to his right to interfere on the application that the accused might be made a first-class misdemeanant it was not only his right but his duty to interfere and give reasons why that course should not be taken.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was neither counsel's right nor his duty—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a request for information.
  MR. CREAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a common practice—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Irish Lights Board.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department have had under consideration the necessity of reconstituting the Irish Board of Lights; and whether the Government will introduce a measure or support a Bill having for its object the increased efficiency and official responsibility in the managements of Irish lights affairs.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): With regard to the first part of the Question, lean add nothing to the reply I have already given the hon. Member; and with regard to the second part I can only say I am unable to give any such pledge.

  Kilmallock Postal Arrangements.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the morning collection of letters is of no use to the inhabitants of Dromin and Ballinculla district, near Kilmallock, in the county of Limerick, as they cannot have their correspondence replied to by that time on the same day; whether he has received a statement from the parish priest of the district to that effect, and asking to have the morning collection changed to an evening one; and will he, in the public interest, accede to the request.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The circumstances of this case having been fully explained to the hon. Member in the answers already given to him by letter on the 11th of September and 15th of November last, and orally in this House on the 25th of last month.† The Postmaster General regrets that he is unable to depart from the decision he has arrived at.

  The Member for Galway.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the legal proceedings taken in the name of Mr. Lynch, Member for Galway City, to recover rents due to him; whether instructions have been given to arrest Mr. Lynch on a charge of high treason so soon as he may come within the King's dominions; and whether steps will be taken, by making him an outlaw or otherwise, to prevent Mr. Lynch from using the King's Courts for recovery of rents.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Before the Attorney General answers that Question, I beg to ask whether he is aware that three of the noble Lord's ancestors were hanged for high treason.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I have heard of the proceedings in Ireland to which my noble friend refers, but have no special information with regard to them. As has already been stated in
  † See preceding Volume, p. 997.
  this House, the answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. I have carefully considered the point raised in the last part of the Question, and do not consider it desirable to take any such proceedings.
  EARL PERCY: Arising out of that, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he can inform the House whether the Act of William III. is still in force, which enacts that prosecution for high treason must take place within three years alter the commission of the offence?
  MR. JOYCE: Has the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman been drawn to the fact that Mr. Lynch has offered to transfer Iris interest in his lands to the tenants without any charge?
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I hope my hon. and learned friend will give an answer to my noble friend's supplementary Question. It is a matter of the greatest possible importance.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Of course the question will have attention, but it is not suitable for discussion by way of Question and answer across the floor of the House.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Is it not a fact that the Percies have been four times outlawed for treason?

  Voluntary and Board School Expenditure.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can lay upon the Table a Return supplementary to [Cd. 315] showing separately, from other miscellaneous expenditure on elementary schools the costs of repairs, rent, and taxes on voluntary and Board schools respectively.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I fear that particulars could not be got without a very great amount of trouble, and that even then they would not be available till after the Education Bill had been under consideration.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: May I ask whether, in point of fact, these figures are not added up and included in one column?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the Return would be extremely costly, would involve the consideration of details of the accounts of some 20,000 schools, and oven then would be so imperfect as not to be of much use.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Would it not be possible, from the materials in the hands of the Government, to set out the particulars in the shape asked for?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I had answered. I have not myself inspected the forms, but lam told they are in such a shape that it would involve a most laborious and lengthy examination of the separate accounts of all the schools to give such a Return.
  MR. HUMPHEEYS-OWEN: I shall put down another Question on the subject.

  Gibraltar Works.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have taken any steps to provide docks and anchor-age for British vessels in the Bay of Gibraltar, not exposed to converging fire from guns which may be placed on the adjacent Spanish coast and territory; and, if so, what is the nature of such steps.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There has been no change in the policy of the Government in connection with Gibraltar since the subject was debated at great length in this and the other House of Parliament last session.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was not the policy of the Government as then ex-pressed to send out an eminent engineer?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question does not arise.

  Crimes Act (Ireland).
  MR. JOHN REDMONDhaving risen—
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid I do not know whether I am right in imagining that the hon. Gentleman is going to ask leave to move the adjournment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I was going to ask a Question first, and it would depend on the answer whether or not I should ask leave.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I want to say something before the adjournment is moved.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I had perhaps better put my Question first—It is, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information to give to the House with reference to the statement in today's newspapers that nine counties and two cities in Ireland have been proclaimed under Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Coercion Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, the Lord Lieutenant, and I associate myself fully with his action, yesterday proclaimed in Council certain urban and rural districts in Ireland, thirty-four in number altogether, and the two cities of Waterford and Cork, under Section 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act. He also proclaimed the nine counties of which those districts form part, together with the County Boroughs of Cork and Waterford, under Sections 3 and 4 of the same Act. The object of that action was to make persons amenable to the law who have broken the law. The definition of the area so proclaimed has been based on information which convinced the Irish Government that the law has been broken, principally by the increased practice and advocacy of offences popularly known as boycotting and intimidation.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand that the proclamation under Section 2 of the Act does not apply to the whole of the nine counties, and, if so, what are the districts that are so affected?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can read the names, but it is a long list.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will not ask it if they are so numerous; we shall see them tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether I am right in interposing, but I take it that the hon. Member for Waterford proposes to ask leave to move the adjournment. Personally, I should not raise any objection to that course on such an occasion as this, but it is evident that it must upset the programme of business which has by common consent been arranged for that evening. It is quite clear that if the subject of proclamation under the Crimes Act is started it must last some little time. I would suggest that it would be the most convenient course if the debate on the Motion for adjournment can be concluded in time to give the Reports of the Budget Resolutions which are non-controversial; and, if that were done, instead of devoting tomorrow to Supply I would ask the House to devote it to the general discussion on the Budget, which was to have taken place tonight. Monday has been arranged for another discussion, but the occasion is one on which the sound and useful practice of devoting Friday to Supply might be interrupted.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Of course, it must be obvious that the discussion on Ireland will take a considerable time. If the right hon. Gentleman would take the general discussion on the Budget on Monday, going on with Supply as arranged tomorrow, I would not object to the taking of the Reports which the right hon. Gentleman desires this evening.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would suggest that if the non-contentious Budget Resolutions are taken this evening it would be better to adhere to the taking of Supply tomorrow, Monday for the discussion of the Corn Duty, and Tuesday for the discussion on the whole Budget.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is force in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps some Members of the House have made arrangements for tomorrow which would be inconsistent
556
with the taking of the discussion of the Budget on that day. My proposal is this—The remainder of this evening for the Motion for the adjournment of the House, and the Reports of the non-controversial Resolutions; tomorrow, Supply, as arranged; on Monday, the general discussion on the Budget, and on Tuesday, the discussion on the Corn Resolutions, together with the Report stage of the Income Tax Resolution.
MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman not keep over the Resolution on Stamps?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to point out that the stamp duty is a very controversial question.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the House will agree to take the Resolution tonight, as I have promised to look into the matter and see what can be done, though I cannot make any announcement till the Report is taken.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the arrangement suggested by the Leader of the House a very reasonable one.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND)—PROCLAMATION.
[Motion for Adjournment.]
MR. JOHN REDMOND, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the proclamation of nine counties and two cities in Ireland under Sections 2, 3, and 4 of The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887;" and the pleasure of the House having been signified—
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The action of the Irish Executive to which I desire to call the attention of the House is of a very grave and serious character indeed, and I desire to address myself to its consideration in a spirit of gravity. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to make any violent attack or to indulge in any extravagant criticism. I regard the step which has been taken

557
as one of the utmost gravity, affecting most prejudicially the future prospects of Ireland; and I desire to discuss it in a spirit of moderation. I am not quite sure if the House of Commons exactly understands the position in which Ireland has been governed of recent years. I think I shall probably be quite accurate if I say that since the Union Ireland has never been governed without the application of exceptional coercive laws for so long a period as the period covered by the last eight or nine years. It is true that during that period there was upon the Statute Book an exceptional coercive law, but it is also true that during those years that law stood in abeyance and during that period the ordinary law of England, Scotland, and Wales prevailed in Ireland. I remember very well the circumstances under which the proclamation of Ireland under the Crimes Acts was revoked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. When he went to Ireland, I think probably he will agree with me, Ireland was not in as peaceful a condition as she is today. When he went to Ireland, a large proportion of the country was disturbed, and there was more ordinary crime and more agrarian crime than there is today. I well remember, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to suspend the operation of the Coercion Act, the solemn warnings that were given to him by the representatives of certain classes in Ireland. I well remember how he was warned that the result of his action would be that crime and outrage and lawlessness would spring up all over the country, and that neither the lives nor property of the landlords or their friends would be safe in the country. But the right hon. Gentleman very wisely believed in the great principle which he went to Ireland to establish, and he very wisely put those warnings upon one side and re-affirmed the right of the Irish people to live under the ordinary law, and he trusted to the ordinary law. The result was that for a period of years afterwards Ireland lived in comparative peace under the ordinary law, and when the present Chief Secretary for Ireland went to take the reins of government in Ireland in his hands, he found a country which he stated himself at the commencement of
558
this year was freer from agrarian crime than it had been at any period during the past century. That has been the condition of things for the past eight or nine years in Ireland, but now the Government have come to a very serious and grave determination. They have entered upon an entirely new policy in Ireland. They have put upon one side all hope of governing Ireland under the same law that prevails in England, Scotland, and Wales; and they come down to this House, and once again they make the confession that they can only govern Ireland by suspending in that country those portions of the British constitution which are valued and most treasured by the people of this country.
It is not that the right hon. Gentleman is simply dabbling in coercion—that was the case up to yesterday. Up to yesterday he was trying his hand in that timid and tentative way with certain portions of the Coercion Act, but the step he has taken now is a reversal of that policy, and an adoption to the full of that quality of coercion which has been the cause of untold misery in the past, and which I think is the greatest blot, from England's point of view, upon the history of the last century. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has proclaimed under certain portions of the Coercion Act nine counties of Ireland—Cavan, Clare, Cork, Leitrim, Mayo, Sligo, Tipperary, Waterford, and Roscommon; and in addition to that he has proclaimed the two important cities of Cork and Waterford, He has included in his proclamation nine counties and two cities, containing, roughly speaking, a population of about 1,500,000 people. He has proclaimed must of these counties—I gather from what he said, for he has not read the list, and perhaps he will do so before the debate ends—he has proclaimed most of these counties under the second section of the Coercion Act. That, second section provides for the abolition for the time being all over the district of the right of trial by jury in a certain class of offence. The classes of offence for which trial by jury has been abolished are just those very classes of cases in which, for the protection of the liberty of the subject, trial by jury is most necessary. Any

559
one acquainted with the criminal law or with the administration of the criminal law knows perfectly well that in the whole of the criminal law there is no part so dangerous to the liberty of the subject as the law of conspiracy. The law of conspiracy might be made an engine of the most appalling injustice and tyranny if in the hands of a tyrannical or unscrupulous Government. Under the law of conspiracy, as the House well knows, men are arraigned and held responsible not merely for their own acts and words and writings, but for the words and acts and writings of other people who may be brought into the indictment with them, but for whose words or acts or writings they in reality are not morally responsible at all. There is no portion of the criminal law so dangerous to the liberty of the subject as this law of conspiracy, and I take leave to say that in past days, as every student of English constitutional history knows, it was alone the constancy, the fortitude, and the courage of English jurors which in the past saved the liberty of the subject in this country. Therefore, you are suspending, over this population of 1,500,000 in Ireland, the right of trial by jury in those very cases where the right of trial by jury is most essential for the liberty of the subject. You are suspending it also in case of conspiracy for unlawful assembly, which, as the House has gathered from some of the earlier debates this session upon the subject of Ireland, is also a class of offence where, in order to protect the right of individuals and freedom of speech; trial by jury ought to be scrupulously maintained. We had the most extraordinary doctrines laid down upon unlawful assembly in the last debate in this House, where it was actually held that a man was rightly-convicted who came to a meeting which was peaceful and at which meeting he had made a perfectly legal speech—such a man was held to be rightly convicted because of a few phrases in the speech of another man who spoke after him, and during whose speech he may not have been present at all. That is the second class of offence—where the right of trial by jury is almost the sole bulwark of free speech and of the liberty of the individual. Over this vast population of 1,500,000 people you
560
are suspending the right of trial by jury in that class of case also. You are suspending the right of trial by jury in offences of intimidation and in offences which in this country, if they arose in connection with Trade Union disputes, could only be tried before a jury. I hold the view very strongly that the tenantry of Ireland in this land struggle are engaged in a great Trade Union contest, and if men in the course of that contest are to be tried for intimidation, they should be tried under the same conditions as Trade Unionists in this country would be tried if they were charged with intimidation. And, finally, under this proclamation trial by jury will be abolished in all cases of what is called incitement to any of the offences that have been named. I say it would be impossible to conceive a set of offences for which trial by jury is more necessary, and yet you have with one scratch of your pen abolished it. The minor sections of the Acts which have been applied to these districts are Sections 3 and 4. Section 3 enables certain offences to be tried by special juries instead of ordinary juries—that is, by selected juries of men drawn from a class who are likely to be prejudiced against the agrarian offender. Section I provides for a change of venue. I can understand some case being made out of this kind: I can imagine a man charged with an offence in connection with the land movement in which the sympathies of the people are with him even if he may have outstepped the law. In all cases of that kind it might be difficult to get a fair trial in the man's own district. I could understand in such a case cause having been shown that there might be some power necessary to change the venue from one district to another. But as I recollect the words of Section 4, it provides that this change of venue is not to rest merely with the Court at all, but with the Attorney General. Section provides that the High Court, on an application by or on behalf of the Attorney General, and upon his certificate that he believes a more impartial and fairer trial can be had, that the Court shall make an order changing the venue. The Court has no power at all in the matter. It is not the case of the

561
Attorney General going to the Court and making out a strong ease that the trial ought to be taken to another district; but it is the case of the Attorney General selecting any venue he likes, and the Court is obliged to accept his choice. I will put an extreme case. The Attorney General, under the operation of this section, if he chose, could take a prisoner from Cork or Kerry and give a certificate, that he thought a fairer trial would be had in Belfast; and thereupon, notwithstanding that the Court might have the strongest opinion that it was a monstrously unfair thing to send the case to Belfast, although they might be of this opinion, and yet agree that the venue ought to be changed from Cork or Kerry, the Court would have no alternative but to change the venue from Cork to Belfast.
I think, Sir, that I have said enough to show the magnitude of the step the Government have taken. First of all, I have shown its magnitude, with regard to the area of the country affected and to the large population affected, and more especially its magnitude, by reference to the extraordinary powers they areinvesting in their own servants the paid removable resident magistrates of the country, who are in future to be allowed to try these difficult cases under the criminal law. It is a strange thing that these outbreaks of coercion are nearly always coincident with some event of special interest and importance to the Empire. It is a strange thing that whenever some great event arises upon which the eyes of the world are centred, some great event when English statesmen desire to show to the world a spectacle of loyalty, of unity, of peace, and of the prosperity of their great Empire, that these are the occasions upon which coercion is invariably revived in Ireland. The House perhaps will remember that this Coercion Act was passed in the Jubilee year of 1887. Ireland was then invited, having received this gift from the Imperial Parliament, of the suspension of the constitution to take part with the rest of the Empire in an exhibition of goodwill and loyalty and contentment here in London. In the Jubilee procession which took place, Ireland was most appropriately represented by nobody at all except a squad of the
562
Royal Irish Constabulary. Now, Sir, a new reign has commenced—a new monarch has come to the throne. The Empire once again, and everybody in this country, is insisting that an exhibition should be made in the streets of London of the unity, the loyalty, the contentment, and the goodwill of the sons of the Empire. From every part of the world they are going to flock into London—from Canada and from Australia and, I suppose, even from the Cape. I do not know whether we will have any representatives from the new Colonies, the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies as they are called; but the Sons of the Empire are being invited from every part of the World to come and make a great pageant in the streets of London on the occasion of the Coronation of King Edward VII., in order to show to the nations of the civilised world how strong and united the Empire is, and how peaceful and contented and loyal are the subjects of the King. And, by way of preparation, the constitution is suspended in Ireland, and once again those Canadian statesmen who come from their contented home-rule governed Colony of Canada, and the Australian statesmen who come here, will find one figure absent from your pageant. They will find Ireland, whose goodwill is of more value to this Empire than all the Colonies put together, standing apart from the ceremony, sullen and disaffected, and they will see her represented once again in your pageant by the bayonets and the muskets of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is a strange thing that these outbreaks of coercion invariably come at periods such as this. Some justification surely is needed for the action of the Government.
Sir, I am enabled by the indulgence of the House to raise this question in a form which is somewhat irregular, and certainly is not a recognised form, and is one which is not popular with the House. We ought not to be put to such expedients at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the Leader of the House, perhaps, ought to have come down and made this announcement to the House, that the constitution was about to be suspended in Ireland, and he ought at

563
once, when announcing a fact of such enormous importance, to have placed at the disposal of the House ample time for the discussion of the Question, and he ought to have made whatever justification or case he could put forward for the action that has been taken. But no, the suspension of the constitution in Ireland is done by the scratch of a pen in Dublin last night, and the first we hear of it today is in a paragraph in the London newspapers, and no case whatever is put forward by the Government, until we force them by this somewhat irregular course, for the serious step that they have taken. I say it is a monstrous thing that action of this kind should be taken without the fullest explanation by those who are responsible for it. Does it come to this, that the abolition of trial by jury in a district populated by a million and a half of people in Ireland, has become a matter of course, and that it can be carried out without any special explanation or discussion in this House?
Now I ask what possible case have the Government to make? I am at a disadvantage because I am speaking before the right hon. Gentleman, and I am trying to speculate as to what possible case he can put forward. Admittedly Ireland is freer from ordinary crime, according to population, than either England, Scotland, or Wales. That is an uncontrovertible statement. The last time I spoke on the subject I gave figures shewing that, according to population, Ireland was far freer of ordinary crime than England, Scotland, or Wales. Ireland is also free from Agrarian crime. It was only the other day that the Chief Secretary told us so. He gave an elaborate set of figures, extending over a period, I think, of between two and three years, and he compared those figures with previous periods in the immediate past. He showed that Ireland was freer of agrarian crime than she ever had been, and in agrarian crime I am not confining myself. Hon. Members must not be misled by malicious statements in a portion of the English Press on this question. When I speak of agrarian crime, I am not excluding boycotting at all if you like to include it. I believe there is a certain class of boy cotting which is criminal and ought to be put down. I think that is the case
564
in this country as well as in Ireland, but I believe at the same time that there is a class of boycotting, called in this country exclusive dealing, which is perfectly legal and perfectly justifiable. But I do not go into distinctions for the purpose of the present argument at all. Let me go the full lengths of concession in order to make my argument. The Chief Secretary, when he talks of boycotting, I presume, includes all classes of boycotting, and what did he say only the other day? He told us that in the whole of Ireland there were only 211 persons who were boycotted at all, and by using the word persons he included all the individuals in families, so that the number of cases of boycotting is very much less—about one-fifth—and of those 211 persons he said there were only twenty-seven that could in any degree be attributed to what was called the popular organisation in Ireland. He was on his defence, because we were attacking him for having dabbled in coercion, and under these circumstances there is no doubt that he would have made the best case he could, and would have given to the House every case of boycotting or agrarian crime he could find in his Returns. He had to make that confession. I ask him—What has happened since then? I think it will be found that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks he cannot materially increase the numbers he then gave, and, if that be so, is it not perfectly monstrous, if there are only twenty-seven persons in the whole of Ireland who have been thus, according to him wrongfully boycotted by the popular organisation, that he should put this tremendous engine of repression into operation over a population of 1,500,000, and scattered over nine counties and two cities? There is a most unscrupulous campaign on foot in England. I confess I do not know, for it is very hard to know, how to account for the existence of this campaign, but it is an infamous thing. I put it to hon. Gentlemen even on the other side of the House, is it not an ignoble and infamous thing for men, no matter what their station in life, to enter into concerted action for the purpose of endeavouring to create the idea in England that Ireland is

565
covered with crime, outrage, and disturbance? For what purpose I know not, except that it is in pursuance of the insane policy they have pursued in the past—the insane policy of thinking that, by repressing the people and persecuting them in some way or other, they will be protecting their own personal class interests and property. I am sorry that a portion of the Press of this country has taken part in this conspiracy. Not all, for some even of the Conservative newspapers in London have been writing very fairly on the question, but there are certain papers which day by day have been publishing the most atrocious falsehoods with reference to the condition of Ireland. Every second evening I have read headings in some London papers, "Reign of Terror in Ireland," "The State of Outrage and Crime in Ireland," and only the other day I saw a full-page illustration in one of the most important weekly illustrated papers of London of a most disgraceful character. It was a picture in the background of which there were smoking cottages; in the front there were a couple of masked moonlighters with guns in their hands, beating women and children, who were kneeling at their feet. Well now, is it not awful, is it not absolutely appalling, that the enormous power at the disposal of great newspapers like that should be used in such an ignoble and criminal manner in endeavouring to raise the idea that there is violence and outrage going on in Ireland? Why, Sir, there is not either violence or outrage. Thank God, moonlight outrages are unknown in Ireland. Thank God, there are no outrages or violence, no murders, or woundings, or firings, or anything of the kind. So far as the surface is concerned, at any rate, there is absolute tranquillity and peace, and all those statements are infamous calumnies, and I cannot conceive how responsible Englishmen can lend themselves to this miserable and contemptible effort to drag poor Ireland once more into disrepute before the world, as if it were a crime-stained and blood-stained country.
I have spoken about strange coincidences. It is a strange coincidence that this recrudescence of coercion should be at the moment of the Coronation celebration. But there is another
566
strange coincidence. It comes just at the moment in Ireland when we are entering on the Local Government elections. In a few days time the Irish people will have a free opportunity in the ballot boxes all over the country of giving their answer to the Government. The first term of three years has elapsed, and the County Council elections are going to take place all over the country; and in my judgment, although I have gone to considerable lengths—I have even gone much further, for example, than some of my hon. friends who sit near me—further than the hon. Member for East Mayo—in the past, in telling the Irish people that in these elections they ought to elect men differing from them in creed and politics, in order to show an example of toleration, I say to the right hon. Gentleman now that I believe the one answer we can effectively give to this coercion regime he is now inaugurating, is to tell the people of Ireland in these elections to elect no man who is not prepared to defy this Coercion Act, and trample it under foot. We will see, then, what will be the outcome of the policy. Will you invade the County Council rooms and the District Council rooms and proclaim them as illegal associations? Perhaps you may, and I have always held the view that it might be a good thing if you did abolish the empty forms of constitutional government, and let the world see what your rule is in Ireland—that is, that it is rule based on naked force and nothing else. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman in adopting this new policy quite realised that he-was doing it on the eve of these elections. I say that the first answer he will get will be the answer in the ballot boxes, and I hope that all over Ireland men will be elected upon this cry—Are you prepared to defy the Coercion Act or are you not?
Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman may still believe that he will be able to dabble in coercion. He may say to himself that having proclaimed nine counties and two cities, he does not intend to put that proclamation very vigorously in force, and that the proclamation was really only a sop to those people who have been pressing him forward on this road of coercion. But I warn the right hon. Gentleman—and I and my friends

567
who sit near me have had long enough experience of public life in Ireland, and of Coercion Acts in that country, to justify us in viewing our warnings as true—I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot stop, and that he will have to go on. He has now allowed himself to be pushed on to this path by the little coterie I alluded to a few moments ago, and it will be in vain to attempt to arrest his progress downward. He will go on, and I am afraid we must make up our minds in Ireland that we will have a period of trouble, suffering, and sacrifice before us. The Irish people have faced that before, and most of us who sit on these Benches have faced it and suffered from it before. We are prepared if necessary to face it again. Now we know what it means. There is nothing new in the history of Ireland under English rule. We are travelling round and round in the same old circle of coercion—first, timid and tentative; then a little more bold; then going on, the appetite increasing by what it feeds on, coercion bolder and bolder, more naked and unashamed; then imprisonment of every man of responsibility in the country; every man who has power to influence and restrain his fellow-coutrymen, then outrage and crime, when we are in prison, with our months closed and our hands manacled, walking round the prison yard with your common pickpockets; then, after a period of suffering and crime, redress of the grievances we have been suffering. Mr. Speaker, the system under which Ireland is governed has no parallel in the history of the world. We in Ireland are governed by a minority, but with a minority who have the Government behind them in Ireland at the present moment. The elected representatives of the people are opposed to them. The elected public bodies in Ireland are opposed to them. The clergy—at least, that portion of the clergy that represent the overwhelming majority of the people—are opposed to them.
In undertaking this step I am not sure that the Cabinet had the complete and united approval of all the Members of the Irish Government. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will have sufficient
568
chivalry, I am sure, to take full responsibility for not only this step, but for all the disasters that will follow from it, but, unless I am very much mistaken, he and others in Ireland have been anxious to go slowly and to pospone this plunge into coercion, and this has been forced upon him by the persistent pressure of the most contemptible and miserable minority that ever brought ruin and disgrace upon a country. Sir, the men who are responsible for this policy-are well known; they are a small clique. In point of numbers they amount to nothing, they have no influence in Ireland, they are the lineal decendants of the intolerant, bigotted, and unscrupulous clique who drove Lord Fitzwilliam out of Ireland in 1795, and they are responsible for every misfortune which has ever overtaken Ireland in the century passed. They are men animated by the meanest and most contemptible motives that could animate human beings. They are animated by considerations of what they think—very foolishly in my opinion—are the interests of their own particular class, and what they think is the protection of their own particular class, and what they think is the protection of their own particular property, and by a motive still more-ignoble and contemptible, by the bigotted spirit of irreligious rancour and sectarian intolerance, which has made a certain portion of Ireland with which they are associated a bye-word before the whole world. That is the way we are governed in Ireland. Not merely are we governed by a minority, we are governed by the most contemptible and worthless minority, who in the past history of our country never did anything for her good, but everything for mischief and wrong.
Sir, I deplore most earnestly the new policy of the Chief Secretary. I deplore it because, however determined we may be to face what is before us in the political future of Ireland, none of us can look forward without a feeling something akin to horror to the consequence that, judging by the past, must inevitably follow from this policy of coercion if adopted. If I could I would do almost anything in my power to induce the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to give up this policy, in order that I might save

569
the judges of Ireland from a period of disturbance and misery, and, I fear, of crime. But, Sir, I know my words have no weight. I know well that people elected to County Councils or to Parliament—men who represent the people—have no influence with the Government. The Government are being driven by men who are in no sense responsible to the people. I say that, while I deplore the policy of the Government, and would make almost any earthly sacrifice in order to save the people from what I see is overtaking them, I will not be such a hypocrite as to pretend that the action of the right hon. Gentleman, from a political point of view, is an unmixed evil. I have more than once said that the one thing wanted in the body politic to make our struggle Against English rule strong and powerful was this little touch of the salt of coercion. I am convinced that the result of the right hon. Gentleman's action will be to strengthen our movement. I can promise him that for every branch of the United Irish League he tries to suppress two will spring up in its place. I promise him that for every man sent to prison in the discharge of his public duty in this movement there will be a dozen willing to take his place. And our answer to him to-night is that while we would entreat of him with all the earnestness at our command, if we thought it would be of any avail, even now to change his policy and halt upon this road, at the same time we tell him that if he goes on we will meet him face to face and give him blow for blow, and our answer to his coercion will be to strengthen our organisation and harden our hearts, and make our movement so powerful in the immediate future that his coercion will be short-lived, and that the day will come all the more speedily for redress and right doing.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member concluded his speech, eloquent as his speeches always are, with prophecies based on political consideration. The action of the Irish Government, which I am here to defend, has
570
not been based on political considerations; and I would, if I can succeed in so doing, allure the House back from the impassioned invective with which he concluded his speech to those earlier portions in which he demanded, as he was entitled to demand, an explanation from the Irish Government of the ground for the action which they have taken. But, Sir, do the periods of the hon. Member, however eloquent, however impassioned, assist the cause he has at heart, or any other useful purpose in Ireland? When I listened to him in that mood I can only feel that it is true that extremes meet, for I find him prophesying and recommending the very courses which were recommended by the most extreme organs of opinion opposed to him. It is he who says it will be a good thing to abolish all forms of constitutional government in Ireland. I do not believe that anybody on the opposite side has put forward so extravagant an idea. It is he who says, "We are travelling on the same old weary round." Yes, we have had agitation launched again in Ireland. I can almost follow every phrase of his speech and apply it to the Party for which he is responsible as he has applied those phrases to the Government. Agitation, at first tentative, partial; at first discountenanced by many men, honourable Nationalists, and discountenanced by himself—
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I never discountenanced agitation; I have always believed that that was the only way to get anything from this House.
MR. WYNDHAM: An agrarian agitation, the importance of which, the immediate necessity for which, many prominent Irish Members discountenanced in 1897 and 1898. But such an agitation is launched, it grows in volume, it passes beyond the control of many of those who first brought it into being, and finally we are travelling "the same old weary round." People's lives are made miserable in Ireland. We then know it is our duty to protect them. We wait on in the hope that these courses will be abandoned soon by those who have taken them up, and when at last the time comes to give up such hope,

571
we look, not for political reasons, but because it is our duty, for the powers to uphold the law.
The hon. Member began his speech this evening by saying that the action taken by the Irish Government is grave. I agree. I do not for one moment minimise the gravity of the step taken yesterday. It is, in my opinion, a grave matter to substitute summary jurisdiction for trial by jury in any part of the United Kingdom, and in respect of any cases tried. But the evils which that course has been taken to diminish, and, we hope, remove are also grave. We are acting on information which has been exhaustively collected and carefully examined. I say exhaustively collected, because, although I have not been and cannot be criticised on this score by the hon. Gentleman, as the Government has been criticised by others, for not knowing what has been going on in Ireland, it has been our duty to make an exhaustive examination of all the facts which have been alleged. Those facts have been carefully examined. We are taking this course because boycotting has increased in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member stated, as he was well entitled to state, that not so long ago I declared that Ireland was comparatively free from agrarian crime against the person or against property. I did state that, and I made a perfectly accurate statement. But I also stated on the same evening, in reply, I think, to an interruption coming from this side of the House, that I had never made light of the crime of boycotting and never would make light of it. And I would ask the House to recollect that when speaking first on this subject in June last in this House I laid it down that if there were but one person boycotted in Ireland it would be the duty of the Government to protect that one person with any measures which they thought proper to effect that object. That declaration of policy elicited, I think, unanimous support from my hon. friends; but I added a rider. At that time I said that the question of the area over which boycotting prevailed and the general condition of the country must affect the policy of the Government when the Government had to consider the specific methods it would adopt for
572
dealing with this admitted evil, and at that time there was not so much boycotting in Ireland as there is now. We did adopt certain steps. In the first place, we put extra police into the disturbed areas in which persons were exposed to this form of oppression; and in the second place, we prevented by an exhibition of force the holding of meetings intended to foster this form of oppression. Those measures were for a time successful; but, as I said to the House in the debate on the Address, in the very speech to which the hon. and learned Member has alluded, two new features appeared in the welter of Irish agrarian agitation during the autumn—in the first place, the action on what has been called the associated estates, which was akin to the Flan of Campaign; and in the second place, the prevalence during the autumn months of organised open denunciation of individuals. We took another step. Under those parts of Section 2 of the Crimes Act which can be used without proclamation we indicted persons who had been guilty in our opinion of unlawful assembly, and we proceeded altogether, I think, against some fifty-four persons. On March 13th I defended in this I louse that action, which was as the hon. and learned Member has stated, our first recourse to that which is called coercion; but I added that it would be my duty to explain and defend from month to month any course which the Government might find it necessary to take in order to protect the liberties of our fellow-subjects in Ireland. Let me do so, and state the facts as they are. I shall exaggerate nothing. I shall extenuate nothing.
I admit that the comparative absence of crime against the person and of crime against property in Ireland is still maintained. I state that there is no widespread repudiation of contract such as we knew in the years 1879 and 1880, and again in 1887, 1888, and 1889. I state that during the last few months, owing to steps already taken by the Executive, as I believe, there has been a marked decrease in open denunciation of individuals by unlawful assemblies. I state that there has been a decrease less marked and only recent, and following upon an increase which gave cause for

573
great anxiety—a less marked decrease in the publication by newspapers of matter intended to intimidate, being, or purporting to be, resolutions passed by secret conclaves. But that remains a subject for grave anxiety. In many newspapers in Ireland today matter is published designedly, as I hold, to bring fear into men's lives. I have exaggerated nothing. Now let me extenuate nothing. It is true on the other side that far from there being a decrease there has been a steady and persistent increase in boycotting. The hon. Member stated that when the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs came into the office of Chief Secretary there was more agrarian crime than at the present moment. Yes, that is true. But how much less boycotting? In the year when the right hon. Gentleman became Chief Secretary, in 1892, there were but three cases of boycotting in Ireland. When he left office in 1895 there were but eight cases. I pass to 1897. In 1897 there were ten cases, in 1898 twelve cases, in 1899 nineteen cases, and in 1900 thirty-three cases. In June last year, when I spoke, there had been an apparent decrease in this offence, and there were twenty-five cases. For that very reason I advised the House at that moment not to take the steps which I now advise them to take. But that dip was not maintained. During the month in which I spoke—June last—there were thirty-three cases of boycotting. In January last there were thirty-seven, in February there were forty-two, including, I think, 265 persons, and in March last—and these are the last figures I have—there were fifty-one cases, involving 301 persons.
MR. DILLON: Are these to be, described as totally or partially boycotted persons?
MR. WYNDHAM: They are what used to be described as persons totally and partially boycotted.
MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly let us know how many were totally and how many were partially-boycotted?
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYrose; but Mr. WYNDHAM declined, to give way.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right to persist if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way.
MR. WYNDHAM: I do not refuse to give way out of any feeling of disrespect for the hon. Member, but a very important impeachment has been preferred by the Leader of the Nationalist Party, and I am endeavouring to deal with it, and it would destroy the efficacy of the debate in which we are all interested if I were to be continually interrupted. Well, the number of persons totally boycotted in Ireland now, as ever, is not large. It is some seven or eight. Yes, Sir, but let the House realise what being totally boycotted means. I have not the figure with me, and therefore, to be on the safe side, I will say that there are not more than perhaps five families who are absolutely unable to get the necessaries of life in their own neighbourhood. But the question asked of me I understood to be—Am I speaking from figures gathered on the same standard? I am.
MR. DILLON: That is to say, we may take it that seven or eight people in Ireland are totally boycotted.
MR. WYNDHAM: The number of persons totally boycotted in Ireland is not now large, and never was large in the worst time—the number of people who were unable to get food unless it was given them by the police. But the number of persons who have difficulty in getting the necessaries of life, who suffer material loss, and live in an atmosphere of threat—that is the number of persons we have to consider. The number of such cases is fifty-one, involving 301 persons. Those figures are based upon the standard which has uniformly been applied throughout the whole of these statistics. If I am asked how many cases there are in Ireland of persons whose welfare and happiness are in any degree affected by such measures of oppression, I should have to say there was something nearer 318 cases of boycotting, involving, I suppose, some 1,500 to 1,900 persons. But I am not urging that except as an additional argument. I confine myself to the facts collected on a standard with which the House has been familiar for years; and I say not so much

575
the number, though that is grave, but the steady and persistent increase through these months of this evil, so insidious, threatening so surely the welfare of the community, is a reason to justify the action which the Government has taken. What have we done? Under the part of Section 2 of the Crimes Act, which we recently employed, we proceeded against persons who produced these evil results by openly denouncing individuals in Ireland. Well, we have taken powers to employ the remaining provisions of the section. Persons who have been guilty of open denunciation have been punished. Persons who produce the same results, either by isolated action on their part or by secret association, will now, under the remaining provisions of section 2, be punished. The hon. Member asked me for the districts in which the Section is in operation. I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes me to read them now.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think we ought to have them.
MR. WYNDHAM: They are the rural districts of Enniskillen (No. 2) in County Cavan; the rural districts of Corofin, Ennistymon, Kilrush, Kildysart, Ennis, and Tulla, and the urban districts of Kilrush and Ennis, in County Clare; the rural districts of Millstreet, Mitchelstown (No. 1), Fermoy, Midleton, and Youghal (No. 1), and the urban districts of Fermoy, Midleton, and Youghal, in County Cork; the rural districts of Manorhamilton and Ballyshannan (No. 3), in County Leitrim; the rural districts of Swinford, Claremorris, and Ballinrobe, in County Mayo: the rural district of Castlerea, in County Roscommon; the urban districts of Sligo and rural districts of Sligo, Dromore West, Tubbercurry and Boyle (No. 2), in County Sligo; the rural districts of Roscrea (No. 1) and Thurles, and the urban districts of Templemore and Thurles, in County Tipperary; the rural districts of Listnore and Youghal (No. 2), in County Waterford, and in the city of Waterford, and the city of Cork. That is information for which the hon. Member is entitled to ask.
Now, I do not disguise from the House that this section is a drastic section. I
576
never attempted to disguise that. Boycotting, intimidation, criminal conspiracy, can be tried under that section without a jury. But I may be asked why we have als employed Sections 3 and 4 of the Crimes Act, and why we have applied them to whole counties and not only to the districts which we consider to be in an acute state of disturbance. Sir, as the hon. and learned Member has himself admitted, those provisions are of a far less drastic character than the provisions of Section 2. They can now be employed in civil suits. But we have applied them to whole counties because they must be applied to whole counties. We could not apply them to parts proclaimed under Section 2 unless we also applied them to whole counties. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that it rested entirely with the Attorney General for Ireland to secure a change of venue, and that his discretion was unlimited. That is not so. Under the Act the defendant may appeal against the action of the Attorney General, the Court may vary or discharge that action, and if it does so, it may give costs to the defendant.
I have indicated the reasons which have prompted the action we have taken, but I feel also that the action or the inaction of the Irish Government would be open to misconstruction if I did not explain why we employ these particular sections, and not Sections 6 and 7 of the Crimes Act, which enable the Government to declare any association illegal. In the first place, we feel that there is a very great and marked distinction between the trying of persons believed by us to be guilty of crimes—though, of course, they are held to be innocent until they are convicted—and the proclamation of an association, thus making an enormous; number of persons potential criminals, and then taking proceedings against them. If hon. Members agree with the Government in thinking that there was such a distinction to be drawn, they will also hold that the Government is acting rightly in proceeding gradually by steps rather than having recourse at once to what may be called the last resources of civilisation when the condition of Ireland at present does not justify such action in our opinion. So much is said and written in this country about the United

577
Irish League that I feel bound to state to the House the views of the Government in regard to it. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford made a violent attack upon a section of the Press in this country, and attributed the worst motives to those who write in these newspapers about, Ireland. I do not think he is justified in imputing such motives. I believe these statements about Ireland are published in good faith; that those who publish them are actuated by real concern for persons whom they believe to be oppressed in Ireland. But I also believe—indeed. I may say I know—that the picture painted of Ireland is, in many cases, exaggerated. I join with the hon. and learned Gentleman in condemning the publication of a large cartoon showing masked ruffians perpetrating crime, when, as a matter of fact, no such crime had been committed. That I regard as a grave abuse, almost an infamous abuse, of the Press of this country. But there is a great difference between such things and some of the articles in the Press of this country, articles which I believe to be inspired by genuine anxiety and true compassion for people whom the writers regard as oppressed. All the more on this account is it our duty to examine the facts very accurately, and to state them to the House. Is there any reason why we should be alarmed at the United Irish League as a political instrument? It has organised the Party which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford leads. I quite agree that it makes use of many imposing titles, such, for instance, as "National Directory." But the power of organisation for political purposes is far less in Ireland than in this country. There is a large number of people in this country whom you may hope to convert to your views. But in Ireland there are none. The two sides are in watertight compartments, and vary only with the birth-rate. Taking the United Irish League as a political instrument, it does not add either to the numbers or to the work of those who are politically opposed to us; it adds only to their war-paint.
It is said also that the United Irish League does grave social evil in Ireland. It is not for me to say it does not. I
578
believe it to be a mischievous organisation, but that is no reason why we should exaggerate its influence, or attribute to the League all the crimes which are committed, sometimes by people who belong to the organisation, and sometimes by people who are not members of it. Take the question of the social effect of the League. Again let me give an illustration. In an article which appeared in a number of English newspapers, we were told that, when the Lenten pastoral of the Bishop of Elphin condemning boycotting was read in one of the churches, so strong was the influence of the United Irish League that the whole congregation rose and left the church. I confess that did impress me. I should consider that such an incident indicated a grave social evil. But it is not what happened. What actually took place was that one man, who is now in prison because he was guilty of unlawful assembly, rose from his seat as if he was going; he was called upon by name by the officiating priest to resume his seat, which he did, and nobody left the church.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: A good sample of Irish news in the English newspapers.
MR. WYNDHAM: I take up that challenge. I believed that story myself for a fortnight, and I feel certain that the persons who published it in responsible newspapers believed it to be true, and gave it, as they were entitled and indeed bound to do, as a piece of information. Do not suppose that I wish to minimise the social effects of the United Irish League. What I deprecate is that the evils should be exaggerated, that public feeling in this country should be whipped up to a state of panic and exacerbation, when we ought to keep cool, when it is the duty of the Irish Executive to act impartially, and when we have one of the most solemn offices of Government and of a strong political party to perform.
I take another point. I read in an article which appeared in a most influential newspaper an account of a very grave disturbance in Ireland. Let me trace the origin of that report. A local agitator who wished to frighten

579
the British people wrote a highly-coloured account for a local newspaper of a torch being lit and a demonstration being held in favour of the Boers, which a force of twenty-two policemen could not prevent. That account is reproduced verbatim in an article which goes the round of a dozen or two dozen provincial newspapers in this country, to lead up to the conclusion that we shall have, if not Home Rule, separation, and a general collapse of society, unless the United Irish League is put an end to. I again examined the facts. It was a case of a few boys who poured paraffin on a rag, lit it, and then cheered for the Boers, but the whole thing was put out in two minutes, and the children ran away. I am sorry that children in Ireland should be taught to cheer the Boers. I do not think it is a laughing matter. But if we knew the facts as they were, should we feel so anxious as some undoubtedly do feel because they have read the fact as presented to us?
Again, take the economic influences attributed to the League. I read, also in a very influential newspaper, that in Sligo, Leitrim, and Roscommon some time ago there were seventy-one derelict farms. The latest information, Galway being included, brought the number up to 120. That sounded alarming. One would assume that the number of derelict farms was increasing by leaps and bounds in these counties. As a matter of fact, the number is 124. But in March 1898, when the United Irish League was founded, they numbered 226 in these counties. Many people believe that vast tracts of land in Ireland are going out of cultivation owing to the widespread influence of this disorder which the Government has dealt with so negligently, and in so tentative a manner. That is not true. In 1892 there were 1,687 derelict farms in Ireland, in 1895 1,138, in 1897 1,191, in 1898 1,087, in 1899 1,079, in 1900 1,021, in 1901 928, and this year there are only 807. When I am put on my trial, as I often am, for the neglect of the Irish Government to deal with disorder in Ireland, I think I may claim these facts in support of the course we have taken, and I may beg hon. Members to believe that in view of such
580
facts we were right in advancing step by step, and in addressing ourselves to an evil which has been growing, instead of to an evil which has been diminishing.
The evil that has been growing is the evil of boycotting. I cannot accept any of the pleas put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in palliation of this offence. We are told that the grazing question is a burning question; that this is a campaign between the landlords and tenants. In the majority of cases the boycotting is not directed against the landlord, who often is not there; nor against the large grazier who sometimes takes seventeen or eighteen farms, and, of course, resides only on one. The direct attack is upon the labourer, upon the herd, who works for him, who perhaps has worked for him for six or seven years, and who knows nothing, who cares nothing for your economic theories, even if they were sound, and who ought not to be asked to enter into these debatable matters. The attack is upon the peasant, and the man or woman who supplies him with the smaller necessaries of life. The attack is brought into the schools, and those who ought to be playmates are taught to meet each other in silence or to jeer at each other. These effects are evil, and hon. Members from Ireland know they are evil. I do not believe that when an agitation is launched the man who launches it realises what its effect will be when it has proceeded for several years. The agitator himself, the professional agitator, knows nothing of and cares less for the doctrines of political economy which, whether they be sound or unsound, are put forward. He hears of a feud, of a family squabble—two brothers each saying that a plot of land belongs to him—or he hears of a village-feud between the town party, with their dilapidated houses, who have had so little notice from this House or from the Irish Members, and the country party alongside, who have secured so much of their attention and of the attention of the Government. The agitator swoops down with the instinct of the blue-bottle for the rotten spot in the joint, and takes one side or the other; it is often a toss up which side he takes. He then proceeds to organise, and the gloom of apprehension falls upon that district.

581
People are condemned to misery and material loss, and all the pleasure in life is eliminated. I do not think these sordid pains and penalties ought to be lightly regarded by any one who considers how bitterly they affect the whole life of the community. It is our duty to put an end to this boycotting by any proper means in our power. I would, Sir, yes, I would that we could avoid the risk of confirming some of those who have been oppressed in their lack of self-reliance. There is a risk in coming to their aid with the use of an exceptional law, but we must take things as they are, and things as they are in some parts of Ireland make it our duty to aid these people, even by these exceptional means. It is our duty to encourage them. It is our duty, if we can, to dispel this brooding oppression which blights all good fellowship, which dulls all initiative, which clouds every prospect to which they might aspire of advancing their conditions by honest toil. We are bound, if we can, to suppress boycotting, and tonight I ask the Mouse to support the Government in the steps they are taking for that purpose. I have not exaggerated the case of the Irish Government at the instance of those who, I believe, moved by genuine feelings of concern and compassion for the distressed, advised the immediate employment of more drastic measures; but I will not minimise it at the instance of those who may be prepared to palliate boycotting on various pleas of economic distress or historic misfortune. We do not need to be taught on this side of the House that the lot of the peasant in the West of Ireland is of ten a hard one; we do not need to be taught that he is descended from men who fared ill in the ruder struggles of earlier ages; but on these very counts, and even apart from our first imperative duty of upholding the law, I say, Sir, for these men there can be no true political development, no sound social regeneration, if now in the 20th century, the weapon of fear is brandished ever before them to cow their spirit and to break their hearts. (8.21.)
MR. SHEEHAN: As the representative of one of the districts marked out for special distinction by the proclamation which has
582
been issued by the Irish Government, I wish to make a few remarks on the subject. The Chief Secretary in his speech made more a defence of the League than an argument for its suppression. From beginning to end his statements seemed to me rather to show that the League was not guilty of any conduct or action which could he construed into incitement either to crime or intimidation in Ireland. On the other hand, the speech was an apology for the intolerant bigots who always howl for coercion in Ireland, and for the government of that country by force. The Chief Secretary justified the attack of the hon. Member for Waterford on a portion of the English Press for the reports they published giving a gross exaggeration of the situation in Ireland. We who know the condition of affairs in Ireland know how the people suffer under a system of oppressive government which is directed from Dublin Castle, and we know that invariably the reports that are furnished to the English Press are more or less the production of fertile imaginations rather than true statements of the facts as they exist. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the usefulness of an exhibition of force to prevent meetings in Ireland. Well, the experience of Members sitting on these Benches has always been that an exhibition of force, instead of preventing meetings in Ireland has always led to the holding of a dozen or more meetings when only one was originally intended. Under the existing forms of the law, the members of the Irish Parliamentary Party are being treated as common criminals in your Irish gaols. That would have appeared to us to have been a sufficiently drastic form of treatment to mete out to the selected representatives of the Irish people, but it seems that the Cabinet Council do not think so, because they are now applying the exceptional forms of the law which have been so long held in abeyance. The right hon. Gentleman made an attempt to defend the Government in this latest action which has been taken, but his defence appeared to be rather a half-humorous exposition of the way in which the English newspapers misrepresent opponents and treat the Irish people, than a justification of his colleagues. He stated that the reason it has been determined to proclaim the United Irish League is the information supplied from various

583
sources in Ireland. Well, I should like to know the sources of information which led to the partial proclamation of the national movement. Where docs the information come from? I say that it comes from poisoned, prejudiced sources. It comes from Sergeant Sheridans of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or the unscrupulous and contemptible minions of the secret service of the British Government, Trial by jury, which is our only charter of liberty, is to be suspended in Ireland. We are not even to have the forms of constitutional government. These are to be taken from us, although we know that in many instances these forms were only mere shadows as far as the securing of justice and fair play in Ireland was concerned. What are we to have instead? We are to have a whole travesty of the forms of constitutional government. We are to have "justice" meted out to us under a cloak and a mockery. It will be a delusion and a snare in Ireland. It will be a system not respected by the Irish people. It will be a system to which the Irish people will give no allegiance, because they know absolutely that it does not secure to them right and justice. The Chief Secretary spoke of a conspiracy, and said that it should be put down. If conspiracy is to be put down it should be that of the landlords, their agents, and their understrappers, which has resulted in the revival of Coercion and may lead to a recrudescence of crime.
The Chief Secretary may think that he is furthering the interests of peace and order in Ireland, but I am quite confident he will find his mistake before very long. Why are we discontented in Ireland? It is because we are ruled unjustly by the Irish Executive, and that we have an impossible system of land tenure. There can be no security or prosperity in Ireland until landlordism is abolished root and branch. I really think that the reason the United Irish League has been proclaimed is that the Government want an excuse to drop their latest Land Bill. Now I should like to know why Millstreet in my own constituency has been proclaimed. I challenge any hon. Member to produce a single atom of evidence to justify Mill street being proclaimed, or to show that there is a single case of intimidation
584
or of boycotting there. From my knowledge of it, it is one of the most peaceful and crimeless districts in Ireland. It may have given some trouble to the Irish Executive in the past, but that should not be urged as an excuse for its present proclamation. As my hon. friend the Member for Waterford said, the action of the Government in proclaiming the United Irish League will have the effect of extending and not retarding its influence. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine for a moment that he can suppress the Irish national movement? Experience shows that for every meeting attempted to be suppressed several meetings will be held. I am quite certain that this revival of coercion will end in failure as every other previous revival has ended. You may break up one or two meetings, you may baton our people, and imprison our representatives, but you cannot suppress the Irish nation, and the sooner England realises that she cannot govern Ireland by force, the better it will be for her own prestige and the safety of her Empire.
MR. POWER: We have listened to a long and somewhat eloquent speech from the Chief Secretary, but I think the right hon. Gentleman answered the first part of that speech in the second part, and he seemed to me, to justify the action of the League be has suppressed. He told us he did not believe in the exaggerated reports that have appeared in the London Press with regard to Ireland. I hope the English people will give ear to those words which fell from the Chief Secretary, and take with a grain of salt a great deal of the stories told by the English Press. As long as I have been in political life, the English Press has done its best to misrepresent the Irish people, and is never satisfied until it has hounded the Government of the day to resort to coercion. On previous occasions, when coercion was applied in Ireland, the Government were generally able to prove that Ireland was at the time in a turbulent state. We have always maintained that any turbulence which exists in Ireland springs from the poverty of the people, and the neglect of the Government to bring in proper land

585
legislation. But, be that as it may, I do not think that any student of the Irish question will be able to find that any Government ever asked for exceptional powers in Ireland without being able to prove from their own point of view that there was turbulence in Ireland. Unfortunately the Coercion Act which has just been revived differs from every other Act in that it is an Act in perpetuity. That Act, which was the making of the First Lord of the Treasury, can be revived whenever the Executive wishes, without any regard whetever to the state of Ireland, and merely in the interests of a small knot of landlords in that country.
What is the present position of affairs? The Chief Secretary candidly acknowledged that from a criminal point of view Ireland could compare favourably with any part of the United Kingdom. I think everyone will acknowledge that so far as ordinary crime is concerned Ireland can compare favourably with any part of the United Kingdom, and I will go further, and say that with regard to ordinary crime it is easier to get convictions by juries in Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. We are told, however, that that only applies to ordinary crime, and that the national organisation promotes agrarian agitation and agrarian crime. Let us see what justification the Government have for reviving this Coercion Act. I have in my hand a Return issued a few days ago of the number of agrarian outrages committed in Ireland which were reported to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary during the quarter ended 31st of December, 1901, being the last available figures. What tale does this Return tell? During these three months in Ireland there had been no case of murder, no case of manslaughter, no case at firing at the person, no case of attempt to murder, no case of administering poison, no case of conspiracy to murder, no case of assaulting the police, no case of aggravated assault, no case of assault endangering life, and even no case of assault on bailiffs and process servers, and certainly if any people deserved a reminder now and again I think it would be these gentlemen. The only column with
586
double figures is the column headed "intimidation," from which it appears that there were twenty-six threatening letters written in Ireland during the three months. There is no column in the English statistics of crime corresponding to that. As a rule a man who writes a threatening letter is not a courageous man; and allow me to say, that if the Irish Members were to prattle about every threatening letter they get at the Post Office in the lobby, the criminal statistics of England would be considerably increased. That column should be omitted altogether. It is quite competent for a man to write to himself half-a-dozen threatening letters, and we who know the action of the police in Ireland are not surprised that many of these letters are attributed to them. English gentlemen who know little or nothing of things in Ireland are surprised that we should make charges of that description against the Executive in Ireland; but, for my part, I can never forget a case that occurred in my childhood, and which is indicative of the whole spirit of Irish administration. In the little church at Carrickbeg, where my father and myself were in the habit of attending mass, a stranger turned up, and was recognised as a very advanced Nationalist. He went under the name of Kelly, and all the advanced Nationalists in my district associated with him, and he swore every one of them into the Fenian organisation. Kelly disappeared suddenly, and the next we saw of him was in the witness-box, prosecuting young men he had duped. He turned out to be the notorious Constable Talbot. He got short shrift himself, and was sent to his long account with very little notice. The Government of that day were aware of his proceedings, and they were more accountable for the infamy of that unfortunate man than he was himself.
Sir, our contention is that this Coercion Act is not aimed at crimes and criminals in the ordinary acceptation of the phrase, but at political opponents. Its main object is to break down the national organisation that was found absolutely necessary to preserve the lives of the people in Ireland. It is all very well to deprecate agitation. If those who speak about the life of an Irish Member knew something of the wear and tear of it, they would not so glibly speak of the

587
luxurious lives we are supposed to lead. But we would be craven cowards if we did not do something to protect the people whom the law had failed to protect. What has been the cause of organisation in Ireland in the past as in the present? What produced the Land Act of 1881? That Act was the result of Land League agitation. What enabled leaseholders in Ireland to enter the Land Courts? Lord Salisbury said that it would be unjust to allow leaseholders to enter the Land Courts; but he and others changed their tune after the Plan of Campaign had brought them to their senses. You yourselves have acknowledged that the dual ownership in land is a failure, and that the only solution is to sell the land to the occupiers and enable them to live and thrive on the holdings their forefathers reclaimed. That is what you are now endeavouring to suppress. I will acknowledge, and no one who knows Ireland can deny it, that the land grabber in Ireland is unpopular and will always remain so. I do not stand here to defend Irish landlords, who, as a class, have never deserved anything of their country. They have identified themselves with the coercion of the people, and for my part I think they can expect nothing from Irishmen. They have always regarded themselves as the English garrison. When Lord Waterford broke up his hunting stud and went away, the cry was, "Do not go, you further reduce the English garrison." But, while saying that of Irish landlords, I must say that they have been encouraged to some extent in their bad work by the people themselves. You crush the Irish industries. In the speech the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made at Dover he drew attention to the fact that the industries of Ireland had been killed by English legislation, and in corroboration of the attitude he then took he read an eloquent passage from one of the works of the great Irishman Lord Dufferin But this brings me to the point I was endeavouring to make, that Irish landlords are bad as a class, or they could not revel in the sufferings of the people as they do, but if it had not been for the Irish people themselves going behind each other's backs and offering to take farms from which the occupiers had been evicted, the landlords might not
588
have been so bad as they are It is the land grabber who has been the stay of the landlords in Ireland, and consequently land grabbers must be unpopular, and there is no doubt that where a man adopts that line in life he is persecuted. It may be said that nobody in Ireland need fear coercion except, the law breakers, but I believe this Coercion Act was aimed at political opponents and political organisations, and particularly the organisation the people have started.
We have always complained of the Coercion Acts, but in this particular case we have a greater right to complain than any in the past. I was in the House when the First Lord of the Treasury promised the House that an appeal would lie, under these Acts, against the decisions of the removable magistrates. On the strength of that promise the Coercion Acts were largely obtained. How has that worked out? There was no kind of appeal on comparatively short terms of imprisonment, but appeals were taken on long sentences. The First Lord delivered a speech at Birmingham in which he said that these appeals were very inconvenient, and what was the result? That reached the cars of the removable magistrates, who took their cue from what was said by the First Lord. They had been in the habit of giving about two months imprisonment for certain offences, against which there could be an appeal, but after those remarks of the First Lord they made two or three cases out of one and gave a month's imprisonment in each case. Now I wish to know what course the Government intend to take with regard to the future. One would think they had opportunities enough for punishing men for attending these meetings. They can take them before these removable magistrates, who will do exactly whatever the Executive wishes, but the Government are not satisfied with that, they not only imprison men for making speeches but they baton people for listening to them. The action of the Government is inexplicable; they have failed to make out a case for coercion, and I venture to say that alter there has been much suffering in Ireland, after they have imprisoned men for being members of the Irish United League,

589
they will come down here and do what the League is now asking them to do. I believe that although the people are suffering now good will come of this action. When the League was suppressed before, a man in my constituency who was not popular in the neighbourhood asked me if I could get him into the League. I said the League was suppressed and asked him why he wished to get into it, and he said—
"It never became active until it was suppressed, and this is the time to get in."
I end, Sir, as I began, in saying that this Coercion Rill, like every other, is aimed not at crime but at the political opponents of the Executive and the political organisations of the people. The state of Ireland today is a scandal to this country. In no country of the world is there so much poverty and misery.
MR. ARCHDALE: I am opposed to coercion as much as any hon. Member in this House, but the coercion that I am opposed to is the coercion of irresponsible people who do not allow others to carry on their own business without their consent. I think the action of the Government in putting into force this Act is not coercion at all. Hon. Gentleman opposite talk about coercion in a curious way. The only part of my county in which there was any boycotting was at a farm which I know very well on the borders of Leitrim. For the last six years this farm has been boycotted, but the person who suffers is not the landlord. The people who suffered were the dealers and graziers who put their cattle on the farm to graze. With the exception of one man these unfortunate people were intimidated, with the result that they took their cattle away and the landlord had their money and his land as well. I do not believe it is altogether a religious question, because a Roman Catholic clergyman took the shooting on this farm, and I myself was shooting next to him on the day he was out. I did not hear him fire a shot, because these gentlemen had been before him and driven off the birds, and put their loot into every nest they could find. I think that some of the things they do are not creditable to any man. Take for instance some of the apologies which men had to come
590
before this "Court" to make. [The hon. Gentleman here read some of the apologies in question.] These people then passed resolutions by which all householders of their parish were to join the organisation by a certain date, or were to be put under the forty-foot pole régime. I am sure if I lived in the neighbourhood I should be intimidated and as much afraid as my humbler neighbours. This is the manner by which the League obtains power and importance in Ireland.
The hon. Member for Waterford spoke of the agitation in Ireland being like Trade Unions in England. He is entirely mistaken. There is about as much likeness between the two movements as between a crocodile and a kangaroo. Mr. Arthur O'Connor, now a County Court Judge, speaking a few years ago, said—
"The land agitation is only a means to an end."
The hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party, speaking at Bradford this year, said—
"In every movement set on foot for the amelioration of the material condition of their country, the Irish had an ulterior object in view, and that object was to obtain self-government".
I do not see much resemblance between an agitation for ob aining self-government and the Trade Union movement in England, and I cannot understand how any Member of this House can be led away by such a statement. I was also astonished to hear the hon. Member say that at the Coronation, when there would be much talk about the "Sons of the Empire," there would be no response from Ireland. I would not like to belittle my country in that way. I believe there will be a greater response from Ireland than from almost any other part of the Empire. The Dublin Fusiliers, the Inniskilling Fusiliers, and the Connaught Rangers have won for themselves imperishable renown in South Africa. These men may be some of the greatest rebels in the world before they enlist, but once they have enlisted there are no stauncher or truer servants of His Majesty than his Irish soldiers. These men will be represented at the Coronation, and will show that "Sons of the Empire" are not altogether wanting in Ireland. I do not believe there is so much bigotry there as some people try to make out. In my own

591
county there is the greatest good fellowship amongst us. There are three hon. Gentlemen from that county sitting on the other side of the House, and they will bear me out in that statement. I think there will not be the result in the County Council elections which some anticipate. The old elections were run entirely on political lines. No Nationalist would vote for a Unionist—unless there was an enormous majority against him, when perhaps he would make the best of a bad bargain and vote for the best Unionist—on the other hand, no Unionist would vote for a Nationalist; they were as bad on the one side as on the other. But I do not think the putting into force of these sections of the Crimes Act will do any harm; on the contrary, they will be of the greatest assistance to the law-abiding subjects of His Majesty.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not a bit astonished at the course taken by the Government. Over and over again (luring the last few months I have stated that we were heading towards a crisis that would produce disaster. But the Government, the responsible persons, having made up their minds that this great change is necessary for the preservation of law and order in Ireland, 1, for one, will not vote against them having that power. Whilst I say that, however, I must admit, after having sat in this House for seventeen years and heard many discussions upon Crimes Acts and matters of this kind, that I have never known such a step to be taken with apparently so little cause. But the responsibility is on the Government, and I will be no party to shifting that responsibility.
Let me take the case as it was put by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that so far as ordinary crime was concerned, the position of Ireland stood as when he spoke last—ordinary crime was practically a nullity in the country. He admitted also that agrarian crime was at a lower point than it had been at almost any time during the last century; that there was no repudiation of contracts on a large scale; that there was a decrease of open denunciation from platforms, and also a decrease of what I call newspaper incitement. That is a pretty clean bill of health for any country. He then
592
went on to say there had been a steady increase of boycotting. When the Crimes Bill of 1887 was introduced into this House the number of persons boycotted, wholly or partially, ran into not hundreds, but thousands. I have not the exact figures, but at one time I have a distinct recollection that the number was over 3,000. I know personally that some of the boycotting at that time was absolutely savage in character. I have lived with boycotted people in the south of Ireland; I have gone with relief to them, and I say now as I said a few nights ago when the Chief Secretary was absent through illness, that there is hardly anything I would not consent to to stop that criminal and remorseless treatment of people with whom you disagreed. Hut what is the case put by the Chief Secretary tonight? He states that in March last there were not 3,000 persons boycotted as in 1887, but 301, and of these only five or seven were wholly boycotted. That is a very-slender platform on which to erect so large a building. This movement on the part of the Government is a movement of pure coercion. The right hon. Gentleman talks about English newspapers publishing exaggerated articles about Ireland, and he very properly condemns them. But from where do these English newspapers get their information? The main factor in this huge erection of false information has been the Daily Express in Dublin, owned, by Lord Ardilaun, one of the landlords who have been pressing this very tiling on the attention of the Government. Everybody who knows anything about Irish public life knows that there has been an agitation on foot to bring this about—an agitation on the part of the extreme section of Irish landlords, and nobody else. I represent a purely agricultural constituency, and what are the facts there? The County Council elections are coming on; the nominations in my Division are over. I do not believe there will be a single landlord returned at those elections in the whole of South Tyrone. In fact, two of those who are retiring are not standing again, and their places will be taken by tenant farmers. There has not been a single meeting held in my division at which a

593
resolution has been passed and forwarded to me calling upon me to support anything of this kind.
The Chief Secretary rather implied that this was not a matter between landlord and tenant. That is always the case in regard to boycotting But let me ask for information; I have not the local knowledge to be certain on this point. There is a part of Ulster proclaimed—County Cavan. Does that comprise the district of Dowra, where the Morley estate is situated? [An IRISH MEMBER: Yes.] I thought it did but I was not certain. What does this mean? This is the only district proclaimed in Ulster, and what are the facts? Lord Morley—a most estimable and able gentleman, whom I have known for many years, and whom I believe to be incapable of doing anything harsh or wrong—was asked by his tenants to sell his estate. The negotiations went on, as these negotiations generally do, for a long lime, and the tenants woke up one morning to find that the estate had been sold not to them, but to a syndicate of land agents. The tenants had offered sixteen or seventeen years purchase of the rents under the Land Purchase Act, but the estate was sold to this syndicate for nine years purchase. [An IRISH MEMBER: Eight and a half years.] I will not go into fractions. The syndicate carried with it all the arrears; the neighbourhood is a very poor one, and the tenants are largely in arrear. Those arrears, spreading over six or seven years, are now being enforced, and there is war on that estate. This proclamation, in that instance, is not intended to deal with a herd or anybody who is boycotted; it is intended to intervene on behalf of this syndicate, to take by the throat tenants who were willing to give seventeen years purchase for an estate sold for nine. One story is good until another is told, and I am bound to say that the inclusion of that property in this proclamation will be looked upon by the tenant-farmer class in Ulster, whom I know as well as any man in this House, as an act of war against land purchase. It is an act of war against land purchase.
I will not go in to the case of the Associated Estates. Those districts are proclaimed, and this is nothing less nor more than a
594
direct intervention between the landlords of these estates and the tenants. These tenants, be it remembered, are not contending under a "No Rent" manifesto. The case differs from that of 1887, because the "No Rent" campaign was then going on. This is a case in which an effort is being made to force land purchase on landlords under a given set of circumstances. Though I think it a mistaken effort, yet I agree with the Attorney General for Ireland that it is a natural one. This proclamation is undoubtedly an intervention between the landlords and the tenants who are willing to buy under the Purchase Acts, just as their neighbours have been permitted, not by the landlords, but by the Government, to do. The Government are directly responsible for all the trouble that has taken place on the Associated Estates. They bought the Dillon Estate; they, and not Lord Dillon, set up the conditions there existing; the people round about wish and are contending for the same terms, and now this proclamation is brought to the aid of the landlords against the would-be purchasers. As regards boycotting, I wish to ask—How does the case stand? The right hon. Gentleman says that he has been able to deal with direct incitement and intimidation from platforms. He says that he has prosecuted in fifty-four cases and he has succeeded in every single case. Therefore he does not require these powers for the intimidation and incitement to boycotting that comes from public platforms. He has already in his hand a weapon quite sufficient for that purpose. The Chief Secretary holds, and I daresay rightly, that there are secret conspiracies and secret meetings where this boycotting is arranged, and where people are incited to boycott persons. Everybody knows that the mere act of boycotting in itself is not an offence, and cannot be made so. To incite to boycotting and to join a conspiracy to boycott are offences, but they entirely depend upon evidence. This is a matter of evidence, and the whole case for this proclamation depends upon whether you can get at the evidence behind the scenes which the Chief Secretary admits to be secret. That is his position, and I venture to say that, looking at the debates in this House over the past seventeen

595
years, I have never seen such large powers asked for upon such slender grounds.
I have already referred to the case of 1887, when there were more than 3,000 cases of boycotting. In that year the very best results followed the adoption of the Coercion Act. But what came with it? There was something else than the Crimes Act during that session, for there was a Land Act. What was the nature of it? It enfranchised some 33,000 leaseholders and opened the door of the Laud Court to these men. It made the tremendous admission that the rents fixed by the Land Commission up to that date, from 1881 to 1887, had been fixed upon a false basis, and it automatically reduced these rents for three years. It plugged up a number of holes which had been driven into the Land Act. That Act went along with the Crimes Act. I admit that the Crimes Act was a great measure, and I admit the good it did and the tyranny it put down. All I can say is that if the measure now proposed had behind it anything like the amount of crime and disorder which there was behind the Act of 1887, there would have been no cause for questioning the adoption of this Act at the present time. But here we have, on the basis of fifty-one cases of boycotting, a proclamation levelled not against boycotting—because there is none in County Cavan—but against intimidation and incitement to boycotting. This proposal is in the main an intervention between the landlords and the tenants in certain cases.
I have received no mandate from South Tyrone to support coercion, although this agitation has been going on for the last month or two. One landlord in Omagh said that there could be no Land Act passed, nor any legislation brought forward that could do a bit of good, until the United Irish League was suppressed. But the agricultural section of my constituency has never asked me to support this proposal, and the responsibility for the measure lies with the Government. I believe there is no real basis for the action of the Government, and I believe there is danger in it. Just as you shut up an organisation that stands on the public platform, you let loose other agencies you cannot control. I am not very sure that the right hon. Gentleman
596
will not be asked to suppress the Farmers' Union of Ulster, but I can assure him that would be a tough job. I know and represent the opinions of tens of thousands of Ulster farmers, members of an organisation ready and willing to support the Government in the administration of law and the preservation of order, but not willing that a weapon should be put into the hands of landlords to interfere with a settlement by purchase. If people were half as willing to reconcile differences in Ireland as they are to accentuate them, much of the difficulty would be removed. My position is more difficult in the House than it is among the Protestant farmers of Ulster but I confess to a sickening feeling as these cases are made as years go on.
Some of my hon. friends protested because I cheered the hon. and learned Member for Waterford when he gave a picture of what was coming. Do my hon. friends deny history? There has never been a Land Bill in modern times—except, perhaps, that of 1890 which came without violent agitation. I cheered that historic fact, which nobody with the slightest knowledge of Irish history can deny. I represent tens of thousands of men upon this question, not constitutionally as their Member, but I know their opinions, and I represent them here, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman they are getting tired of this oscillation between coercion and conciliation. Surely it is possible for this great Empire, with its enormous power and influence, to take this Irish question resolutely in hand and make an end of it It is a purely agrarian question, it is far more economic than political. How long are we to wait? How many Coercion Bills have there been?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Eighty-seven.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: How many I have supported from a stern sense of duty, I do not know; but I beg, I entreat hon. Members on this side of the House not to turn away from other remedies altogether. If Coercion Bills could cure this Irish wrong, it would have been

597
cured long ago. To those who declare the Irish people irreconcilable. I reply in John Bright's words—
"I have a belief in justice that cannot be shaken."
So have I. I beg hon. Gentlemen here to study this Irish question, even during the nineteenth century, and they will find Irish Members over and over again have been constantly bringing forward Irish grievances. They have brought forward Irish Land Bills and other measures of the most moderate character, and they have been thrown out. We have suited the Irish case over and over again, and little was done until the Irish people commenced an agitation, and then the English Parliament rushed to do in a hurry what they ought to have done at their leisure. In saying this, I am not an enemy of the Union. I believe in the Union as thoroughly as any man on this side of the House, and I think I have done more than most hon. Members to maintain it. When some hon. Members dared not put this question forward on the platform, I was pleading for it; and I plead for it as strongly today as ever I did in my life. I do feel, however, that this House ought to face this agrarian problem in solemn earnest. I ask the House to look the question in the face, to see how little it would Cost to settle it, and by settling it thus rid the country of half the trouble that is now involved in the government of Ireland. I am speaking as a Unionist and as the representative of an Ulster constituency whom I am not afraid to face. They have heard from me those words long ago, and they agree with me; and I beg and entreat—not the Government, because my words will have no weight with them, but the House of Commons, this great assembly which is master of the Government and everything else; I entreat this House of Commons not to allow this question to simmer on until you get into another land war and land agitation and until you are compelled to do in haste what you might well do, and do much better, at leisure.
MR. DILLON: Anyone who has followed with closeness and attention the history of the last six months in Ireland knows that the policy adopted by the Government yesterday in Ireland
598
is not the policy of the Irish Government, but the policy of Lord Londonderry, Lord Ardilaun, and the gang who, with the aid of The Times, have driven the Irish Government into a course which is against their own judgment. Ireland is now reduced to this position—that, although one would suppose it was bad enough to be governed for 100 years by strangers who came to our country ignorant of our history and the peculiarities of our social condition, we have reached on this occasion a lower depth still because we are now governed not by the responsible and nominal governors of Ireland, but by a clique who sit behind that Government, which has driven and forced them into a policy of coercion against their own judgment and against their own will. Anyone who listened to the Chief Secretary tonight could easily have seen by the tone of his speech and its character that he was associating himself with a policy simply from a sense of duty to his colleagues in the Cabinet, and it was evident that his heart was not in the defence of his ease. I have had a longer experience than the hon. Member for South Tyrone of coercion in this House, and I have never heard a Chief Secretary make such a feeble, half-hearted, faint, and unreal defence of a Coercion Act as we have listened to this evening. I do not know whether any hon. Members who are present have taken the trouble to read the proclamation which appeared in the Dublin Gazette last night. These proclamations, applying provisions of the Coercion Act, which the Chief Secretary concedes constitutes a very serious departure of policy, are signed by whom? They are signed by Lord Ashbourne, Lord Powerscourt, Lord Clonbrock, and by Mr. Smith-Barry. I say that if any sense of decency remained in the Government of Ireland, the names of Lord Clonbrock and Mr. Smith-Barry should not be signed to a proclamation suspending the Constitution.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why did not they get Clanricarde?
MR. DILLON: It would not be a bit more indecent These proclamations are signed by the Lord Chancellor and three of the great Irish landlords, all of whom have been associated with this whole campaign of blackening the

599
character of their own people in the eyes of the people of this country by every conceivable system of misrepresentation and falsehood, and have been associated throughout with the policy of the extreme landlords and coercion party in Ireland. We know perfectly well whose policy this is. It is the policy, not of the Government, nor even of the whole Unionist minority in Ireland—it is the policy supported only by a small minority of the Unionist minority itself. They are the lineal descendants of that Orange gang who have been equally the curse of Ireland and of your Government. I regret that the hon. Member for South Belfast, for whom we have a sort of affection, was not allowed to quote from a speech—a speech which if I delivered in Ireland I would be put in prison for, for we are blamed for being disloyal, and told on high authority someone of the eminence of Lord Londonderry or Lord Ardilaun—that we can never get home government by a statesman, who formerly advocated it when we were equally disloyal, until we are loyal. Well, for fear there might be any mistake about it, I take the opportunity of admitting in this House that I am intensely disloyal; and the Chief Secretary himself knows that in making that admission I am giving the best and most adequate expression I could give to the sentiments of more than three-fourths of the Irish nation. Why should we be loyal? I read the other day the speech of a great lawyer, one of the extreme gang responsible for this policy, in which he said—
"Loyalty is a compact between the subject and the Crown, and loyalty ceases to bind the moment your property and your liberty is not protected by the Government."
In other words, they will cease to be loyal as soon as they are not supported by the full forces of the Government in levying their rack-rents from the starving people of Ireland, people over whose homes, by the tens of thousands, the ploughshare of ruin has been driven by your Government and your soldiers. Loyalty to a Government whom we know only in the shape of your armed forces, protecting bailiffs, and the agents of landlords, who have laid waste our country and levelled more homes than ever have been levelled by invading armies on the Continent of Europe!
600
Loyalty from a nation which has been reduced by the devastating policy of your Government from 8,500,000 to 4,250,000! I heard an hon. Member talk of the Inniskilling Fusiliers. I am proud to see Irish men behave bravely, even when fighting in a bad cause. The Dublin Fusiliers left Dublin a thousand strong. They came back the other day, but only 300 of them. Although I think the cause was bad, I am proud of them. Last week I received a letter, which any hon. Member can see, from a colour-sergeant in an English regiment in South Africa. He was a Mayo man, from my constituency, and he said in effect, "You Irish Members are very often hard upon Irish soldiers. I come from a ten-acre farm. My father and I were in Yorkshire working to try to earn the arrears of rent, and while there the farm was evicted and grabbed." And then be went on to say that he was obliged to enlist; but he wished to know if I could get anything done with the grabber, so that he might come back to the old place. In hundreds of cases there are men driven out by the tyranny of landlords who are spilling their blood fighting your battles.
Now I come to the case made out for this dreadful departure. I know the course this thing will take. I warned the Irish Secretary, who tried to get us to believe that it was a small matter which would blow over, that coercion in Ireland never blows over. You can never tell where it will end, once you start. I read long ago the life of the late Mr. W. E. Forster. I was in prison—it was smuggled in to me, and I kept it concealed under the mattress, hiding it when any prison officials came in, for I was not allowed to read anything. Mr. Forster went to Ireland full of sympathy and good feeling for the Irish people, and without an atom of sympathy with the landlord class—he went, as he believed, to scatter blessings over the Irish people; and when he was obliged to bring in a Coercion Act, he did not treat it in the way we heard it treated tonight, although he had an extensive record of crime—murders, and other crimes of violence—and undoubtedly a condition of things very serious. Again, in 1887, although the case was weaker than in

601
Mr. Forster's time, the then Chief Secretary had a long catalogue of really serious cases of boycotting before him, and a most powerful combination in all parts of the country to deal with. In the speech then of the present First Lord of the Treasury introducing coercion, he said his justification for it was that there was a steady and alarming increase of boycotting, and refusing to pay rent. I do not say that the grounds for the coercion of 1887 were sufficient, but these were infinitely stronger than any grounds attempted to be put forward for the present action of the Government. At the very outset of the Chief Secretary's speech, he made a statement which. I think, I am bound to describe as most astonishing. He said that if there was one person boycotted in Ireland, the Government would be bound to protect that person by all the means at their disposal. But are we to take it that the boycotting of one person would be ground enough for the suspension of the Constitution in Ireland?
MR. WYNDHAM: When I made the statement to which the hon. Member refers, I was asking the House to revert to what I said in June last. I then stated that if one person was boycotted it would be the duty of the Government to protect that person.
MR. DILLON: There must be some relation between the extent of the evil and the extent of the remedy, and to tell me that boycotting is to be held as justifying the destruction of liberty is nonsense. This policy involves dark and unfathomable dangers in the future. In the worst old days all English Ministers felt themselves bound to make out a great case before they applied coercion and took away the vital right of trial by jury, Even in the days of the Duke of Wellington, Lord Peel, and Lord Russell, before any Reform Bill was passed, none of these great statesmen would have dreamt of proposing coercion for Ireland on such a miserable case as has been made to-night. I ask what has taken place in Ireland to justify this sudden and extraordinary change of policy on the part of the Chief Secretary? We
602
were referred in his speech to four facts only—the action of the Associated. Estates, an increase in the number of meetings to denounce individuals, matter published in newspapers intended to bring terror into men's minds, and a small growth in boycotting. I will deal with these one by one. The action of the Associated Estates—we have it on the words of Judge O'Connor Morris—was the direct and natural outcome of the action of the Government itself. It is not a strike against rents nor an attempt to defraud any man of his just rights, It was a natural offer on the part of the people to buy their farms at the same-price as fixed by the Government after a bargain with Lord Dillon. That is not a very grievous crime. The agitation and discontent were gravely increased by the fact that there is on the De Freyne estate an agent—Mr. Flanagan—who has treated the people very harshly and unjustly. Only yesterday, at French-park, a number of actions taken against the tenants by this agent were dismissed by the mag strate owing to their harshness and injustice. Doubtless those disturbances had been brought about by the action of the Government, and by the harsh and cruel action of the agent on the De Freyne estate. The whole of this agitation has been characterised by the greatest peacefulness. No crime and no intimidation is alleged, and so far as the Associated Estates are concerned, there is not a shadow of ground for coercion.
Let me come now to the increase in the number of meetings. Can there be anything more vague alleged as a ground for coercion than the holding of meetings to denounce individuals? Is it a crime to denounce individuals? Is that unknown in this country? If the Chief Secretary was at Blenheim last year, he would have heard some pretty lively denunciations of individuals. I don't think I ever read a meeting which the Colonial Secretary attended at which he did not denounce some individual, and sometimes this is emphasised by the danger of paving-stones and brickbats and bludgeons. I have denounced the Chief Secretary at several meetings. Is that a crime? I admit that if your language is an incitement to violence

603
against an individual, it is a crime, and you should be properly tried for it. But the Chief Secretary did not say that at these meetings individuals were denounced with a view to violence being used towards them. We have his word that no violence exists in Ireland. As to the matter put in newspapers for the purpose of bringing fear into men's minds, that is a most extraordinary charge to make, in view of what has been said in English newspapers. When three-fourths of the Press of England has been engaged in inciting mobs to hunt and injure those whom they are pleased to call pro-Boers, it appears to me this is rather a cool proposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The law should be the same for newspapers in Ireland as it is for Great Britain, and Irish newspapers charged with intimidating individuals ought to get the same fair play as English newspapers.
Then I come to the last ground on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his change of policy—the increase in boycotting. Anything more flimsy and preposterous than the case made by the Chief Secretary on this point I have never listened to. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was reluctant to make any distinction between the cases of totally and partially boycotted persons, and yet it would be impossible to exaggerate the importance of the distinction. The right hon. Gentleman says there are fifty-one eases altogether of boycotting, including all classes of persons, and on that basis alone he justifies this policy of coercion. When I asked him how many were totally boycotted, and how many partially, he said there were between five and seven totally, and the remainder partially boycotted. I admit that total boycotting is a serious thing, but let the House recall the extent to which it exists in this country on the occasion, for instance, of great strikes. Let hon. Members recall the incidents of the coal strike or the great dock strike in London. Workmen were imported, and elaborate police protection had to be organised, and yet there was no question of coercion, and as long as the strikers abstained from physical violence, there was no question
604
of putting the law in force against them. Yet Ireland is to lose whatever liberties she possesses under the Constitution because there are four or five cases of complete boycotting in the country.
As regards partial boycotting, are hon. Members familiar with its meaning? Partial boycotting is a mere question of opinion. I know some Members of this House who are partially boycotted and who would be returned by the police in Ireland as partially boycotted. When I used to do electioneering work in this country in the days of the Home Rule movement in 1885 and 1886, I never went into a constituency without being met with bitter complaints from the Radical voters of the systematic boycotting to which they were subjected. What is partial boycotting? If a man drives his cattle into the fair, and they are not sold, he would be partially boycotted. An Irish policeman would return a man as partially boycotted if his neighbours refused to speak to him at a fair, or if he noticed anything indicating that the man was in any way unpopular.
MR. WYNDHAM: I was very careful to draw a distinction between those eases and others. If I had taken account of such cases as the hon. Member now refers to, the figures I gave would have been much larger, involving between 1,500 and 1,900 persons.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has given no definition whatever of what he means by partial boycotting. My case remains unaffected. Partial boycotting is in Ireland merely what the police choose to describe as such. What, after all, do fifty-one cases signify, when there; is not a single case alleged in which the supposed boycotting is accompanied with violence? Are these, I ask, sufficient grounds for robbing our country of its rights, and for embarking upon a fresh war against the people of Ireland? I was sorry to hear the Chief Secretary, who in some of his speeches showed considerable feeling for the Irish people, and some desire to get into touch with their real wants, describing this agitation as artificial, and gotten up by professional agitators, whom he likened

605
to blue-bottle flies settling down on corruption, and going round the country seeking where they might ply their mischievous trade. The right hon. Gentleman looks upon us, who are the elected representatives of the people of Ireland, who have nothing to offer the people to induce them to elect us who are debarred from those means of influence familiar to other Members of the House—he looks upon us simply as self-seeking men, animated by the vilest conceivable motives, and going about our country with the one object of finding out some sordid local quarrel on which to fasten in order to fan the embers of disturbance into a flame.
MR. WYNDHAM: I carefully distinguished between those who initiated the agitation and the results.
MR. DILLON: I tell the right hon. Gentleman that if that is all he has learned of Ireland, his administration of it will not be very successful. We may be very objectionable to some people in this House, but they must know they cannot dislodge us from our constituencies. Whether you practise coercion in Ireland, or whether you try to "kill Home Rule with, kindness," you cannot dislodge us from our constituencies. We remain here, and we intend to remain here until you restore to Ireland the right of managing her own affairs. If the Chief Secretary really holds the view he expressed in his offensive observation tonight, say he is very poorly qualified to govern the Irish people, and he will find he has formed a very poor opinion of the Irish people in thinking that he can serve his own position by thus grossly insulting their representatives in this House.
MR. BRYCE: As there was an arrangement made early in the evening that a little time should be given in which to deal with one or two of the non-controversial Budget Resolutions, I shall be very brief in the remarks I shall make tonight, but this question is of too much gravity to pass unnoticed by English and Scotch Members. There
606
is indeed, a dry monotony about these Irish coercion debates. To those of us whose recollection goes back twenty years, we seem to be hearing the melancholy echoes of past controversies, with the same promises in favour of coercion, and the same warnings against it. By this debate I am reminded of what was said by the First Lord of the Treasury when he brought forward his first Coercion Act of 1887. But the case he made out then was very different to the case made out now. This is the eighty-seventh Coercion Act which has been passed since the Union, and on every previous occasion. I venture to say, the ease made out by the Government for demanding exceptional legislation was entirely unlike the case we have had tonight. What sort of a case have we had tonight? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in defending the exceptional action which has been taken by the Government appeared to be discharging what to him personally was a very unpleasant task in putting into force coercive legislation, because the right hon. Gentleman is attached to freedom. I do not suggest that his task was the more unwelcome because he had not a good ease. Let hon. Members who were here in 1880 recollect what case there was then. Let them think of the case in 1881; think of the case in 1882, after the Phoenix Park murders; think of the case in 1887, when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury cited to us charge after charge from the assizes in Ireland, and piled up case after case, tending to show that over two-thirds of Ireland there was a conspiracy not to pay rent. We opposed that Coercion Bill then, as we should oppose it now; but everybody who remembers the magnitude and gravity of the case then must compare it with the flimsiness and unsubstantiality of the case presented tonight.
What is the case made tonight? That boycotting has risen from thirty-seven cases in January to fifty-one cases in March, and even those cases are only what is called partial boycott. What is the meaning of "partial boycott"? It means that the police could establish a case perhaps of intimidation. We should

607
make quite sure of what these cases are before we resort to exceptional legislation. We have reason to believe that in many of these cases the interference with the freedom and liberty of the subject may be very small indeed. There were only five cases of complete boycott—five eases out of 5,000,000 people. What did the right hon. Gentleman say as to the condition of Ireland? He said Ireland was admitted to be exceptionally free from crime. If we look at the last ten years, I think we should find in the long and melancholy annals of Irish crime that there has hardly been a period so free from serious offences; even the agrarian offences have been slight. Yet what has been the history of those ten years? We had the Coercion Act enacted in 1887, when, no doubt, there was a great deal of crime, but not of the gravest order, not nearly so grave as the crime of 1881 and 1882. From 1887 to 1892 the Act was in force, although, if my recollection is right, one or two of its provisions were dropped before the change of Government in 1892. In 1892 there was a change of Government, and the right hon. Member for Montrose became Chief Secretary. He put into force no clauses of the Act, although he was pressed week after week by the landlord party to put the Act into force. My right hon. friend preferred the ordinary law, and the proclamations issued by the previous Government were revoked. He went on, during the three years that that Government was in existence, without resort to any exceptional legislation, and the condition of Ireland became better and better, crime steadily diminished, the minds of the people became tranquilised, and the idea grew in Ireland that a change had come about, and that idea brought about a change in the attitude of the people towards the law and towards the British Government. Then a change of Government took place in 1895, and the present President of the Board of Trade came into office as Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman did not put into force these exceptional powers. Speaking from memory, I am not quite certain whether any of these exceptional powers were used. [Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: No.] The right hon. Gentleman went on during
608
his five years of administration without those exceptional powers. There was no increase of crime; on the contrary, the condition of the country, speaking broadly, although there were disturbed areas here and there, remained peaceful and tranquil, and the good results of 1892 were not lost. The landlord party then, as now, were continually trying to induce the right hon. Gentleman to put the Crimes Act into force. There were debates in this House, and the customary articles in English newspapers; there were exaggerated statements like those which the Chief Secretary tonight, with honest indignation, has condemned articles intended to inflame and exasperate England against Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman, with the courage and wisdom for which, I hope, we shall always honour him refused to give way to that pressure; he continued to administer Ireland under the ordinary law; he set himself to the better policy of looking into the economic condition of the country, endeavouring to benefit her, and to turn the minds of her people out of the paths of political agitation into the paths of industry. He was strengthened in that work by a former Member of this House, whom this very ascendancy Party will not allow to return, and to whom Ireland owes a deep and lasting debt of gratitude—I mean Mr. Horace Plunkett.
MR. MACARTNEY: Then why did they not return him for Galway?
MR. DILLON: Because he is not a Nationalist.
MR. BRYCE: He does not belong to the Nationalist Party. Does the light hon. Gentleman wish that he should join the Nationalist Party? Is the right hon. Gentleman so bad an Irishman that he does not admit that a man may be anxious for the economic welfare of Ireland without, becoming a Nationalist? Does he not think that such a course of conduct, consistently and honestly pursued, is the very course of conduct which ought to receive the cordial recognition of the

609
Unionist Party in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade went out of office in 1900, and was succeeded by the present Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would, I am sure, like to walk in the paths of his predecessor. There were evident signs in the way in which he presented this exceptionally and unprecedentedly weak case tonight that he was not acting on his own better judgment, but that the pressure of which we have seen and heard so much during the last few months, and the origin of which we all know, had at last proved too strong for him.
There was another point in the presentation of his case which struck me. The right hon. Gentleman did not show how these exceptional powers will enable him to put down boycotting. I think we all agree with him about the injury boycotting does; there is no difference of opinion on that point. It is one of the most difficult offences to deal with. Some Members will doubtless remember the historic speech delivered by the present Prime Minister in 1885, in which he pointed out with much force that of all offences boycotting was the most impalpable to deal with, and the one in which it was hardest to single out a particular person for indictment. Those difficulties have not disappeared; they are the same now as in 1885; and the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing to put into force these provisions, ought to have shown, as some compensation for the unquestionable evils which recourse to the Act will bring about, that there was some prospect of boycotting being put down.
There was also another admission from his statement. The right hon. Gentleman is going to use Sections 3 and 4. Section 3 compels the High Court to grant a special jury, and Section 4 is the section under which the venue may be changed. But the House knows perfectly well that boycotting is not an offence which is proceeded against by way either of special jury or of changing the venue. It is proceeded against in a summary way. Why, then, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put these sections into force? He offered no explanation. The only explanation winch occurs to me is that, as these two sections are intended to deal with graver crimes, to
610
enable convictions to be better secured where the crime is one of darker dye, the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a recrudescence of more serious crime, that he thinks the result of the campaign he is entering upon against boycotting under Section 2 will be to induce graver crimes than have, happily, lately existed in Ireland. ["No!"] I hope that is not his belief; but, if not, why is it necessary to put into force these two sections, which confessedly are useless as regards boycotting?
I have no wish to prolong this debate. I will not remind the House that there is, as we think, a better way of dealing with Irish discontent, that the true way-is to satisfy the feeling in Ireland, to bring about tranquility and contentment, to produce social order, and to surround the law there with the same respect and confidence which happily obtains in this country. The way to do that is not by coercion, but by extension of local self-government. That topic is one with which the House is perfectly familiar; I will, therefore, say only one word in parting with it. Would it not have been far better, even if you are not prepared to enter upon the path of extending—slowly and by degrees, if you like—the powers of local self-government, not to interfere with the experiment in self-government which you made by the Act of four years ago, but to bear for a little longer the confessedly slight evils now existing, to trust a little more to patience and the operation of remedial measures to cure the ills of Ireland, to endeavour to conciliate Irish tenants by extending, even gradually, the system of land purchase, than to launch once more into this vicious circle of coercion—a course which will produce more agitation, more crime, and more trouble and difficulty for Ireland? These are melancholy days in the history of this House when we are called upon either to pass Coercion Acts or to sanction their re-enforcement. These are melancholy days, because they have no hope for the future; they are but repeating the course which England has unhappily followed for so many years; and I cannot but fear that in taking the course the Government are adopting today they

611
are laying the foundation of a host of new troubles for Ireland and of new difficulties for England.
MR. MACARTNEY: As I have on one or two occasions called attention to the condition of Ireland. I wish to say a few words on this occasion, not for the purpose of reviving any controversies that I have had with the Irish Government, or of dwelling on the fact that the action they have now taken to a large extent justifies the arguments I have brought before the House, but for the purpose of repudiating the insinuation that those who were in favour of seeing the full protection of British law given to Irish subjects took up that position on behalf of one special class of the Irish population. I have never based my application for a more stringent application of the law upon the landlords question. So far as I know, the situation is not complicated by the landlords question in any part of Ireland except on one particular estate, but I have never used the De Freyne question as an argument in favour of the course I have urged upon the Government. I have always spoken on behalf of those who are not landlords—those who occupy their own farms, or are engaged, either as labourers, artisans, or shopkeepers, in the West and South of Ireland, the great majority of whom do not belong to my religion, or profess my political faith. These are the men who have suffered from the condition which has obtained for so many months in those portions of Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo said they were deservedly boycotted.
Mr. DILLON: I said nothing of the kind.
Mr. MACARTNEY: I thought it was the hon. Member. At any rate, one of his colleagues said that these men who were suffering from the illegal intimidation produced generally by the United Irish League were deservedly boycotted. Why are they deservedly boycotted? Because they have attempted to stand out for the privileges and liberty which
612
under the constitution they are entitled to exercise. On behalf of this class of the population, who, in my opinion, are as worthy of the sympathy of this House and the consideration of the Government as any other class, I desire to express my satisfaction that the Irish Executive have at last awakened to their responsibilities, and are now prepared, I hope, to give the people the additional protection which will secure to them the liberty of action of which they have been deprived for so many months. We have heard tonight many dismal prophecies of what may take place if the Government persist in this course. Many of us heard those prophecies fifteen years ago, and we can afford to disregard them. We know that whenever the Irish Government have made up their minds to put the law into force and to ensure that justice should be done, there has been a gradual but steady diminution of crime, the condition of Ireland has improved, and the material resources of the country have been increased.
LORD HUGH CECIL: I have great diffidence in intervening in this discussion, and I do so only because the subject-matter appears to be one of great gravity, and also one not of great complexity, but of such simplicity that those who claim no special acquaintance with Irish affairs may yet form, and without presumption express, an opinion on the matter. We have had matters introduced into this discussion, no doubt cursorily, but which nevertheless seem to me to be irrevelant to the main subject. For example, we have had a very able and eloquent criticism of the minority in Ireland from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I have no admiration for the minority—for what is called the "Ascendancy" Party in Ireland. I think they are often hysterical, singularly incapable of helping themselves, and singularly unreasonable in the criticisms they make against the Government. But that really is not the point. It does not matter whether the minority in Ireland are reasonable or unreasonable. That is no justification for breaking the law, and it is no reason why

613
the Government should not enforce the law. This really has no hearing whatever upon the point, which is, whether people, under the existing circumstances of the case, should be allowed to commit criminal acts or not. In the present controversy, with regard to Home Rule, it is, at any rate, certain that a Home Rule Government would not enforce the law, and, therefore, the return of such a Government would mean the ascendancy of criminality. We approach, therefore, what is really a simple matter. I heard with amazement the doctrine of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, that experience goes to show that whenever coercion, as he calls it, was adopted, and whenever a certain number of prominent agitators are shut up in prison, then crime begins to be prevalent, and the forces of constitutional authority are nullified. I believe the contrary to be the case. The statistics, I think, prove quite overwhelmingly that whenever agitation has been allowed a free hand, crime has tended to grow, and that, whenever what the hon. and learned Member calls coercion has been adopted, crime has promptly and most remarkably diminished. I will quote from the table of statistics which was presented to the Special Commission. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite seem to have a certain criterion of evidence. Everything that tells against them is false, and everything that tells in their favour is true. This table of statistics, which I am about to quote, was judicially proved—[An HON. MEMBER: So was Pigott's letter.]—and, therefore, is deserving of attention. This table shows that the number of crimes in 1888 were only 301, in 1879 they were 863, in 1880, 2,587, and in 1881, when the Land League was rising in power, there were 4,439 crimes. The result was, that in the year 1882, after the passing of the Coercion Act in the previous year, the number of crimes fell to no less than 870.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: That result was caused by the passing of the Land Act in 1881.
LORD HUGH CECIL: This table shows that, so far from its being true that the policy of coercion stimulates crime, it reduced it by no less a proportion than striking off four-fifths of the amount. And the House is very well aware that this statistical array, among other things, induced the Commission to find that no other cause could be properly adduced as the true cause of crime except the agitation of the National League. When we are told, "Oh, you are going back to your old coercion." that is saying nothing more sensible than to say to a person suffering from a recurrent malaria, "Oh, you are going back to your old quinine." This is a remedy that has constantly succeeded; and, though this is a milder attack of the malady than before, it bears the well-known marks of the old disease, and, being applied at an earlier stage, we have every confidence that it will have even happier results.
We have had a great deal of discussion this evening upon this subject, but let me ask whether the House really carries in its mind what is meant by boycotting. A great many people seem to think that boycotting is simply an exhibition of organised opinion by legitimate methods, and that a boycotted person really is in no worse position than an unpopular person must always be. It is perfectly true that if boycotting amounted to nothing more than unpopularity, it would be a very difficult thing to put down, and we should, in fact, have often to submit to it.
[The Noble Lord quoted a passage from the Report of the Special Commission, and continued—]
He found among the names of those who were convicted in this passage of this surely very terrible conspiracy, the name of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who, nevertheless, thinks it not unfit to come down to the House, and, himself having been declared guilty of this offence, to advise the House, with an air of statesmanlike moderation, on what is and what is not a legitimate form of boycotting. We hear a good deal of the suspension of juries, and the interference with the British Constitution. Are we so stupid as not to realise

615
that all Constitutions have for their object one supreme purpose—the happiness of the governed? If it appears that any part of the Constitution is no longer the minister of liberty, but the shelter of tyranny, the sooner that part of the Constitution is suspended or set aside the better, in the interests of the governed.
I was astonished at listening to the use of the word "coercion." It is, of course, true that no system of law can be altogether without an element of coercion. No one, voluntarily, is put in the dock, or sent to prison, or the gallows, or to penal servitude. An element of coercion there must be. But the true and harmful coercion is not that which is exercised in the light of day, and before a responsible tribunal. The true coercion, against which the lovers of liberty ought to fight as long as they are able, is the coercion which is exercised secretly, and without a sense of responsibility, in the tumult of popular passion, and at the incitement of unscrupulous agitators. If there are any coercionists in this House, there they sit [pointing to the Irish Benches]. Theirs it is to play the part of oppressors, and when the Government intervene and set in motion a form of criminal procedure—and it is no more than that—under which those who are notoriously guilty; those whose guilt it is hardly thought worth while to dispute, may be brought to the justice they deserve, they are the true friends of liberty, and it is as the friends of liberty, that the great majority of this House will support the Government in the course they are taking.
MR. HARRINGTONsaid that he could not
616
allow the speech of the noble Lord to go without some observations from the Nationalist Benches. If there was anything to justify the position which his colleagues had taken up upon this question, and which would tend to intensify the feelings of disloyalty in the hearts of the Irish people, it was speeches of the character as that to which they had just listened. There was no crime in the noble Lord's imagination which was too foul to attribute to the Irish people, and there was no charge made against Ireland which he was not willing to accept. The noble Lord knew nothing of the people of Ireland, and yet he had only just stopped short of the result which his noble father offered to the Irish people in not designating them as Hottentots. Irishmen abhorred crime just as much as the noble Lord, and the Irish representatives had as high a character amongst their own people as he had, and when they returned to their constituencies they had not to make false promises or use money for corrupt; purposes, in order to get returned. He appealed to the House on behalf of the millions of Irish people who were being driven out of the country by the wretched policy of the present Government, and by this wretched policy of coercion which had been entered upon by the Chief Secretary with as light a heart as any of his predecessors.
What was the good of a measure like this, which was intended simply to endeavour to protect a very few people who were boycotted? This Coercion Act would only intensify the feeling of bitterness against those who were boycotted, and those hon. Gentlemen opposite who had any influence upon the policy of the Government, ought to

617
appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen not to make the position of these people any more unpleasant. The whole mass of the people would detest the policy initiated by the Irish Government. The noble Lord would have them think that he knew the history of their country better than they did, but that was an ignorant assumption which had left them this Irish problem as an heirloom. The noble Lord gravely announced that the diminution of crime in Ireland in 1882 was due to the Coercion Act. Was he so ignorant as not to know that the reason for that diminution was the great Land Bill passed in 1881? Surely the noble Lord knew the greatest Land Act ever given to Ireland was passed in 1881. Therefore it was not coercion but the operation of the Land Act which caused the diminution of crime. The Irish tenant was able to go into the land court to have the rent fixed for his farm under the Land Act, and the noble Lord had evidently forgotten the healing effect of the operation of that Act, and thought it was now necessary to resort to a further period of coercion. All I can say is that I pity the English people in their endeavour to settle the Irish question if their cabinets and councils are to be dominated by men of the
character and standing of the noble Lord. That is what lies at the root of the entire evil. It is the fact there is not one touch of sympathy in their dealings with the people of Ireland, and that the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite is not dominated by sympathy and kindness. Those who have been through the mill in Ireland know something of the conditions of the country, but the noble Lord seems to think that he knows the entire thing better than anybody who has been there. The Government are going to harass and coerce the people in everyway they can devise. I make the noble Lord a present of all he can gain by this coercion. So far from turning the people of Ireland from the pursuit of their legal and just rights, so far from suppressing this organisation, coercion will only intensify the feelings of the people. If the noble Lord enters into that with a light spirit, he will find sufficient spirit and resolution in Ireland to despise the machinery of coercion of which he is now enamoured.
(11.43.) Question put.
House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 253. (Division List No. 117.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Blake, Edward

Cawley, Frederick

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Channing, Francis Allston

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

Brigg, John

Cogan, Denis J.

Asher, Alexander

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crean, Eugene

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Burns, John

Cremer, William Randal

Crombie, John William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Caine, William Sproston

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Caldwell, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Bell, Richard

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Delany, William

Black, Alexander William

Causton, Richard Knight

Dillon, John

Doogan, P. C.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roche, John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Runciman, Walter

Edwards, Frank

M'Cann, James

Emmott, Alfred

M'Crae, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitecbapel)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Govern, T.

Schwann, Charles E.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kean, John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Field, William

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Flynn, James Christopher

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Markham, Arthur Basil

Soares, Ernest J.

Mooney, John J.

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Gilhooly, James

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Stevenson, Francis S.

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devenport)

Sullivan, Donal

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Murphy, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Tennant, Harold John

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Hammond, John

Norman, Henry

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Harrington, Timothy

Tomkinson, James

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Ure, Alexander

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Dowd, John

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Weir, James Galloway

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Malley, William

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshi'e

O'Mara, James

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Joyce, Michael

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

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Kennedy, Patrick James

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Young, Samuel

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Price, Robert John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Priestley, Arthur

Lewis, John Herbert

Lloyd-George, David

Rea, Russell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Corrie Grant.

Lough, Thomas

Reckitt, Harold James

Lundon, W.

Reddy, M.

Redmond, John F. (Waterford)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Rigg, Richard

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Hartley, George C. T.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Beckett, Ernest William

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bignold, Arthur

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bigwood, James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bill, Charles

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Arrol, Sir William

Blundeil, Colonel Henry

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Brassey, Albert

Chapman, Edward

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Charrington, Spencer

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Balcarres, Lord

Bull, William James

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

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

Bullard, Sir Harry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Butcher, John George

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Balfour, Kenneth K. (Christen.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

620

621

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Howard, J no. (Kent, Faversham

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Plummer, Walter R.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Purvis, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pym, C. Guy

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Randles, John S.

Crossley, Sir Saville

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rankin, Sir James

Ratcliff, R. F.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon, James (Lanes, Bury)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Renwick, George

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Keswick, William

Richards, Henry Charles

Dickson, Charles Scott

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dorington, Sir. John Edward

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Doughty, George

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Duke, Henry Edward

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Round, James

Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rutherford, John

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fellowes, Hon. Ail wyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Seton-Karr, Henry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Flower, Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

Galloway, William Johnson

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Gardner, Ernest

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Cordon, Hn. J. F. (Elgin & Nairn

Maconochie, A. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

M. Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Malcolm, Ian

Valentia, Viscount

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Warr, Agustus Frederick

Grenfell, William Henry

Mitchell, William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Gretton, John

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Webb, Colonel William George

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Well by, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Morgan, David. J (Walthamst'w

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

Hain, Edward

Morgan, Rt. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Mount, William Arthur

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Muntz, Philip A.

Willough by de Eresby, Lord

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nder'y

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Wilson A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Myers, William Henry

Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Holder, Augustus

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wylie, Alexander

Henderson, Alexander

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Parker, Gilbert

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Parkes, Ebenezer

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brghtside

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Penn, John

Hoult, Joseph

Percy, Earl

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pierpoint, Robert

Resolutions agreed to.

NEW BILL.
  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the establishment of Day Industrial Schools in Ireland," presented by Mr. Harrington, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Mr. Field; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 14th May and to be printed. [Bill 154].
WAYS AND MEANS [15TH APRIL].—REPORT.
Resolutions reported—
WAYS AND MEANS [15TH APRIL].—REPORT.

  LOAN.
  1. "That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, sums not exceeding £32,000,000 may be raised by means of the creation of 2¾ per cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of The National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888; and that any annuities forming stock so created be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  "That all expenses incurred in connection with raising the said sums, including any additional remuneration to the Banks of England and Ireland, be charged on the Consolidated Fund."

  STAMP DUTY (BILLS OF EXCHANGE).
  2. That on and after the 1st day of July, 1902, 2d. shall be substituted for 1d. as the Stamp Duty on bills of exchange payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation, or within three days after date or sight."

  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  3. "That the additional Customs Duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of The
  624
  Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased Duties imposed by Section 5 of that Act), shall continue to be charged until the 1st day of August 1903."

  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTY ON BEER AND SPIRITS.
  4. "That the additional Excise Duties on Beer and Spirits imposed by Sections 6 and 7 of The Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the 1st day of August, 1903."
  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  5. "That it is expedient to prolong the term of certain annuities, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue."

  CUSTOMS—TEA.
  6. "That the Customs Duty now charged on Tea shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and three (that is to say)—
  Tea. the pound Sixpence."
  Bill ordered, upon the First Resolution, to be brought in by the Deputy Chairman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

  LOAN BILL.
  "To provide for raising money for the service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1903," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]
  Adjourned at live minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Middlesex County Council Tramways.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ISLINGTON AND EUSTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Petition for additional provision, of the City and South London Railway Company and certain promoters of the Islington and Euston Railway Bill, together with proposed Amendments and clauses annexed thereto; read and referred to the Examiners.
CLAY CROSS RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL
  BRIGHTON AND ROTTINGDEAN SEASHORE ELECTRIC TRAMROAD BILL,

    FAREHAM GAS BILL,
    LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL,
    EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.

MANCHESTER DISTRICT TELEPHONE BOARD BILL [H.L.],
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (MANCHESTER AREA) BILL [H.L.],
  Read 2a (according to order).
BIRMINGHAM ASSAY OFFICE BILL [H.L.],
  PLYMOUTH, DEVONPORT, AND SOUTHWESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
  Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (NEW LINES) BILL [H.L.]
Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order) and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of Kinsman Hichens and others. Leave given to present the said Petition.
GRAND JUNCTION WATER BILL,
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL,
    TICEHURST WATER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2763. United States (Chicago, etc).
  No. 2764. Greece (Thessaly).
  No. 2765. France (Nantes).
  No. 2766. Turkey (Trebizond).
  No. 2767. Argentine Confederation (Buenos Ayres).

GOLD COAST.
Correspondence relating to Ashanti, 1901.
COLONIES (ANNUAL).
No. 353. Southern Nigeria: Report for 1900.

CYPRUS.
Report for 1900–1901.
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN, 1885.
Account for the year ended. 31st March, 1902.
GREEK LOAN, 1898.
Account for the year ended 31st March, 1901.
LOCAL LOANS FUND (ACCOUNTS, 1900–1901).
Accounts of receipts and payments by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of the capital and income of the Local Loans Fund, for the year ended 31st March 1901; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon

SUPERANNUATION (PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS).
Treasury Minute, dated 10th April, 1902, declaring that, for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Administrative Examiner (Endowed Schools), under the Board of Education, South Kensington, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
[Second Reading.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, this Bill is designed to remove a grievance which is felt by musical publishers and composers. It simply reprints and applies to musical copyright four clauses of the Copyright Bill which passed your Lordships House in 1900, with the object of giving additional and summary powers for the express purpose of stopping the piracy of musical works. My first feeling was to refuse to have anything to do with piecemeal legislation in the matter of copyright, but I soon found that the evil in the case of musical copyright was such a very serious one that it was desirable to introduce this Bill. This view is endorsed by my noble and learned friend Lord Thring and by Lord Knutsford, both of whom took an active part in the proceedings of the Copyright Committee.
By Clause 1, any person printing, selling, distributing, or importing any pirated musical work shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every copy so dealt with, such fine not to exceed in the whole fifty pounds in respect of any one transaction. By
456
Clause 2, Sub-section 1, a specially authorised constable may seize, without warrant, pirated copies hawked or carried about, and bring them before a court of summary jurisdiction, which may order them to be destroyed or to be delivered to the owner; and by Sub-section 2 of the same clause a search warrant may be granted by a court of summary jurisdiction to search for and seize pirated copies reasonably believed to be within the jurisdiction of the court. Clause 3 provides that a constable authorised by the apparent owner of any musical copyright may seize pirated copies being hawked about and offered for sale.
I have received a great many communications from musical composers and publishers of music testifying to the need for such summary remedy. One of the largest firms of music publishers—Messrs. Boosey—inform me that many of then-popular songs have been pirated and sold, that no publisher's name is printed on these pirated songs, and that unless some steps are immediately taken a large and valuable industry will utterly collapse. Enclosed with that letter was a pirated copy of a song entitled "The Holy City," and although the copyright price—1s. 4d.—is placed in the corner, the song is being sold in the streets for a few pence per copy. This afternoon I also received from Messrs. Boosey a copy of a pirate's catalogue of music. It is headed, "To all whom it may concern," and it proceeds—
"Sir or Madam,
"Having purchased an enormous quantity of high-class music. I am able to supply the following songs at ridiculously low prices."
Then follows a long list of the most popular songs of the day; but no name being attached, it is impossible to trace the printers. What is desired is a summary remedy for this kind of thing. At present, as soon as a song becomes popular, copies of it are secretly printed and hawked about in the principal thoroughfares of all towns and cities in the United Kingdom. The music is in all respects identical with the legitimate copies, except that it is printed on inferior paper, and is retailed at about twopence instead of two shillings per copy. The only remedy that exists at present is by action for injunction or damages, and both remedies are absolutely useless and inadequate in the majority of cases.

457
Your Lordships may perhaps have observed that Messrs. Boosey the other day obtained £115 damages against some defendants in respect of pirated music; but the firm informs me that the defendants say they cannot pay and that it is quite impossible to get the money. During the last few years the piracy of musical copyright has enormously increased, and has now reached such alarming proportions that it is having a paralysing effect on the legitimate trade in musical works. The Press has been full of complaints with regard to this matter, and it is high time something was done.
I have been in communication with several Members of the other House with regard to this Bill, and it has been represented to me that a good deal of objection may possibly be taken in the House of Commons to Sub-section 2 of Clause 2, giving a power of search to a constable. I shall be very sorry if that sub-section has to be dropped from the Bill, but, at the same time, rather than get nothing, I shall be quite content to move its omission at a later stage should your Lordships be good enough to read the Bill a second time.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
[Second Reading.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the Earl of HALSBURY)explained that this was a measure to codify the law relating to marine insurance. The Bill also contained several Amendments of a technical nature, which he did not imagine their Lordships would wish to discuss. The Bill was a very desirable one, and he trusted the House would give it a Second Reading.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid the Bill was intended to amend the Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 and 1866, by extending the powers of the Court in relation to alimony and leave to intervene. In this way one or two defects in the administration of the law would be remedied.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
On the order to go into Committee on this Bill,
THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid it was intended to consolidate, with Amendments, the enactments relating to Naval prize of war.
House in Committee (according to order).
Bill reported without amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

THE SUGAR CONFERENCE.
LORD PIRBRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a French Yellow-book, containing all the diplomatic documents relating to the Sugar Conferences of 1898 and 1901–2, together with full reports of all the meetings of the two Conferences, has been published in Paris by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs; and whether he will now lay on the Table of the House the corresponding documents in English.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (the Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, we have received a copy of the French Yellow-book containing documents relating to the Conference of 1898, and also to the recent Conference of 1901–2. The Papers relating to the first of those two Conferences were presented in 1898, and I shall be glad to obtain a copy of them for the noble Lord if he desires it. With regard to the Papers relating to the recent Conference, we are at the present moment preparing a Blue-book, and I hope to lay it on the Table of the House early next week, probably on Tuesday.

459
I do not propose to include in the Blue-book the whole of the procès-verbaux of the recent Conference. They cover over 400 pages of printed matter, and I believe that the information which they contain is sufficiently summarised in the Papers which we intend to present. The procès-verbaux are, moreover, in French, and I think that it would involve needless time and trouble to prepare an English version of them, which I gather is suggested in the noble Lord's Question. I shall be glad to put a copy of the French Yellow-book in the library for reference if the noble Lord desires it.
LORD PIRBRIGHT: I should like to ask whether it is not the case that in respect of the Conference of 1887–8, the procès-verbaux, were printed in French, and afterwards translated and printed in English?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I believe that to be the case, but obviously the task of translating a great mass of documents of that kind is a very serious one, and I do not think we should be justified in undertaking it, unless it was absolutely necessary for the purpose of giving public information.

STATE OF MILITARY SUPPLIES IN 1895.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government if it is the fact that in October, 1894, contracts had been entered into with private firms for a supply of cordite, and that no other contract with private firms for land purposes was found necessary till February, 1899; and to ask on what grounds it has been stated that the supply of cordite and small arms ammunition was insufficient when the late Government quitted office in 1895 is based; and to move for Papers. I desire, in the first place, to remove a misapprehension under which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs apparently labours. On a former occasion, when I proposed to move my Motion in another form, the noble Marquess said it was necessary that he should have time to prepare his defence, thereby conveying the impression that I was the aggressor. But, my Lords, I am not the aggressor in this matter. I am merely defending myself against a 460
bitter and serious attack. Surely it is my duty, as well as my right, to defend myself, and the Government of which I had the honour to be a member, from such an attack as that which has been made. It has been said that, if the attack deserved to be met at all, it ought to be met in the House of Commons. I scarcely think that the right hon. Gentleman who leads the House of Commons would be obliged to the noble Marquess the Prime Minister for the suggestion that this question should be raised there. The House of Commons has plenty to do with its Rules of Procedure and with, two most important and contentious Bills recently introduced—those relating to Irish Land and the Education Bill. The Leader of the other House will, therefore, not be obliged to the Prime Minister for suggesting that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman should move the adjournment in order to discuss the criticisms of the Secretary for War.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (the Marquess of SALISBURY): My contention was one affecting the order and practice of Parliament. It is not our business here to settle disputes that have arisen in the other House, and it is not the business of the other House to settle disputes that have arisen here. Each House must settle its own affairs. It will be endless if we have to settle here every difficulty that has arisen in the other House simply because the House of Commons, owing to the growth of business of another character, has not the time to settle it.
LORD MONKSWELL: I do not think that the rule enunciated by the noble Marquess has been strictly observed. In the year 1893, when the Home Rule Bill was before the House, the Earl of Selborne, a distinguished predecessor of the noble Earl on the Woolsack not only referred to statements made in that session in the other House, but quoted a passage from a speech by Mr. Asquith. Surely this is, to some extent at all events, a matter of convenience, and not of strict constitutional procedure. Here this matter can be discussed at any length that noble Lords please without

461
in the least interfering with public business and without any damage to the prospects of legislation. The defeat of the late Government in 1895 was in more ways than one a very remarkable circumstance. It was remarkable in the first place because the House was induced to take the opinion of a then private Member with regard to the important question as to what reserve of ammunition was or was not sufficient, instead of the opinion of the Secretary of State and his responsible expert advisers; and it was remarkable in the second place because the defeat took place contrary to the confident expectations of those who are generally well-informed in such matters. I do not desire to go into ancient history. I should be perfectly content to let bygones be bygones; but this question has been raised quite gratuitously in the form of a very serious attack. My object tonight is to nail to the counter a false coin which has been current in certain circles for seven years past. I credit the Secretary of State for War and the noble Marquess with believing at the time, contrary to the opinion of the then Secretary of State and the War Office experts, that large reserves of small arms ammunition were desirable, and even of considerable importance. But I find it a little difficult to credit them with any very strong feeling in the matter; and I will explain why. When the late Government was turned out of office, a small Supplementary Vote of £70,000, as well as £40,000, saved by the out-going Government owing to the fall in the price of materials, was taken for small arms ammunition, though the statement had been made that there was a shortage of 80,000,000 cartridges. It was stated that, instead of a reserve of 40,000,000 or 50,000,000, we ought to have had a reserve of 130,000,000.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Whom by?
LORD MONKSWELL: That was the statement of the present Secretary of State for War, and from the speech of the Colonial Secretary I infer that he thought the shortage amounted to something like 500,000,000 rounds of ammunition. The £110,000 which was
462
asked for by the new Government would have provided only 25,000,000 rounds; and having asked for so little where so much might have been expected, one might suppose that the new Government would at least have taken care that they got what they asked. This point is so important that I trust the House will allow me to quote the words of the present Secretary of State for War in the session of 1895. The right hon Gentleman protested strongly because the supplies were sometimes delivered late by the contractors, and he added—
"We have laid it down for our special guidance that it is not sufficient to take the vote and give the order, but that we must receive the ammunition."
I have looked into the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1895–6, and I find that of the small sum of £70,000 asked for in the Supplementary Estimate, less than half was spent in the year, owing, as it was explained, "to delay in the delivery of trade supplies." The sum unexpended at the end of the financial year was £39,326. Notwithstanding the original statement that we were 80,000,000 cartridges short, the Government only asked for 25,000,000, and of that number they received a paltry 15,000,000 or so. Is it conceivable that if Parliament had known what was to happen it would have turned out the late Government? I wish to know whether the Government sat still under this breach of contract, which, according to their previous statements, must have seriously menaced the safety of the Empire; whether they punished the contractors; whether these contractors still supply the War Office; and whether the Government will publish the correspondence which must have taken place between the War Office and the contractors. You may depend upon it that contractors will not make contracts which they cannot fulfil if they know that a penalty will be exacted, and I should like to know whether a penalty was enforced in this case.
I would further ask the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary to say whether it is not the fact that during the time that he was Secretary of State for War the reserve of small arms ammunition fell below the amount at which it stood when the late Government was turned

463
out of office. I can understand that seven years ago the present Secretary of State for War and the noble Marquess were persuaded that large reserves were desirable, but I cannot understand how that belief can have survived the experience of the war. How can it be maintained that if we had been in power when the war began a want of ammunition would have compelled us to clear out of South Africa in three months? That is the accusation which has been brought against us. What has happened? It has been shown that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's provision for the supply of cordite was ample; it has been admitted that the contracts he made in 1894 sufficed till February, 1899. The noble Marquess may say that, although he made ample contracts for cordite, he did not make ample contracts for the supply of cartridges. I would remind the noble Marquess that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman was the first to put the supply of cordite cartridges out to contract, and that he entered into two experimental contracts, capable of indefinite expansion, each for the supply of 5,000,000 cartridges, to be delivered within the year.
The only issue, therefore, appears to be between storage and manufacture. We thought that there ought to be ample opportunities for obtaining ammunition from manufacturers as well as from our own factories; but we did not consider it desirable to have a greater storage of ammunition than was fairly reasonable. The question of storage is a difficult one. If cordite is stored too largely, there is always the danger of explosion and deterioration, and of the supply becoming obsolete owing to a change in the guns, and other reasons. The question that I raise to-night—and it is an important question for the future—is this—Were Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and his experts right, or were they wrong? This is a question which might have been discussed till doomsday but for the occurrence of this remarkable circumstance—that when the war broke out in 1899 there was practically little or no reserve of small arms ammunition at all. [The Marquess of LANSDOWNE dissented.] Of course, I am open to correction. In 1899 nearly all the small arms ammunition was composed of Mark IV. cartridges.
464
Those cartridges had been in use for some two years, and, curiously enough, it was not until the summer of 1899 at Bisley that suspicion was aroused with regard to them. An inquiry was held during the early part of the Autumn, and the cartridges were condemned. The result of that condemnation was that the Mark IV. cartridges, which composed the bulk of our ammunition, had to be converted into Mark V. That conversion did not commence until about the time when the war began, and the consequence was that every cartridge sent out to South Africa after the outbreak of war was made during the war. Therefore the war was carried on, not only without the large reserve of ammunition which the present Secretary of State for War and the noble Marquess thought necessary, but practically without any reserve in England at all.
What was the reserve in South Africa when the war began? In South Africa there was an enormous quantity of these Mark IV. cartridges, and as they could not be converted into Mark V. in South Africa, they were sent back to England to be so converted, which occasioned the loss of at least two months. Again, with regard to the reserve in South Africa, Ladysmith was made a great place of arms, but after Ladysmith was invested no military stores there were available outside. It does seem to me that the fact that we were able to hold on in South Africa in this extraordinary concatenation of untoward circumstances was a complete vindication of the judgment of the late Government that it was unnecessary to have a large reserve of ammunition, and that it was much better to rely upon manufacture. I say that as regards reserve we could not have been worse off than the present Government, which had none. Some day, I presume, there will have to be an inquiry as to this Mark IV. ammunition, and why it was not condemned before. I am not, however, bringing any accusation against the noble Marquess with regard to that. But what I say is—granted we should have muddled over Mark IV. cartridges as badly as the present Government did; granted we should have shut up our military stores in Ladysmith as they did; granted we should have displayed no more judgment and foresight as to the magnitude of the operation than they did—where is the sense

465
or fairness of asserting that we should have been compelled to clear out of South Africa in three months? This assertion is made on behalf of a Government that had practically no reserve of small arms ammunition at all. What the noble Marquess has to show is that this assertion is not as baseless as I venture to say it is odious. I should like to have Papers with regard to the conversion of the Mark IV. ammunition, and the length of time this ammunition continued to be manufactured; and I wish to know whether the Mark IV. ammunition is still in use in India, It would also be interesting to know how many cartridges were turned out every week after the commencement of the war. I should like also to have the correspondence between the War Office and the contractors with regard to the delays in sending in the supplies, and I further press the noble Marquess to tell me whether or not it is the fact that during his administration of the War Office there was a time when there was a smaller reserve of small arms ammunition than we had when we were turned out of office in 1895.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the alleged insufficiency of the supply of cordite and small arms ammunition when the late Government quitted office in 1895. (The Lord Monkswell.)
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, before proceeding to answer the questions of the noble Lord, I desire to congratulate him on having omitted that part of his original question which referred to the condition of the artillery, which, I venture to think, he is wise in not bringing before your Lordships' House. The question on which the late Government was turned out of office was not the question of the cordite contract, as the noble Lord seems to imagine. The late Government was impeached in 1895 on the amount of small arms ammunition in its possession, and was also attacked on the amount ordered and provided. This amount was deficient, and I believe the deficiency was due to the fact that in previous years the amount taken for
466
ammunition had not been spent, and no attempt was made to make up the deficiency which was known to exist. It is correct that in the year 1894 the Government made a contract with certain firms for the supply of about 1,200 tons of cordite, to be spread over three years. Of that 1,200 tons about 1,000 tons was for the use of the Navy and 200 tons only for the Army. During the years to which the noble Lord's Question refers 700 tons of cordite was ordered from contractors for the use of the Admiralty; but the noble Lord has forgotten that the ordnance factories were also beginning to deliver large quantities of cordite for the use of the War Office. During those four years 825 tons of cordite was turned out by the Government factories, and 160 tons was obtained from the trade, in addition to 450 tons in the shape of small arms ammunition from the ordnance factories. The amount of cordite actually provided by the trade and the ordnance factories during those four years was, therefore, something like 2,200 tons, of which 1,435 tons was for the use of the Army. I am afraid I cannot follow the noble Lord's figures with regard to the supply of small arms ammunition stored at the time the late Government relinquished office. When the late Government relinquished office in 1895 there should have been in existence, according to their own scale, 146,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. The actual amount that was in existence was 92,000,000 rounds, the deficiency, therefore, being 54,000,000. When the present Government came into office in July, 1895, they immediately introduced a Supplementary Estimate and gave orders for fresh ammunition. A contract was put out for 14,000,000 rounds of ammunition, which was as much as could be obtained between that date and the end of the financial year. It required a considerable period to make up the supply of ammunition to the amount the Government considered it should have been. But between the years 1895 and 1899 very large demands were made on the Army for the Egyptian campaign, in the course of which a very large quantity of ammunition was expended. In addition to that, the amount of ammunition used in the ordinary annual practice

467
was largely increased, and, therefore, the ordinary wastage was much greater than ever it had been before; but such were the arrangements made by the new Government that when the war broke out in 1899 there were 168,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition in store.
LORD MONKSWELL: Of what pattern? Was it Mark IV. ammunition?
LORD RAGLAN: Some of it certainly was Mark IV. That was at the end of the practice season, when 40,000,000 or 50,000,000 rounds had been expended, and the reserves of ammunition were at their lowest. The fault found with the late Government was that they did not maintain their own authorised equipment. It is not a question of reserve ammunition; it is a question of the amount of equipment for an army in the field. That equipment was not maintained, and there was no reserve over and above that equipment. It was not for want of having their attention called to the matter that the Members of the late Government omitted to examine it. Their attention was called to it by the present Secretary of State for War in 1894, when Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman acknowledged that the reserves of ammunition were not what he could wish them to be. In 1895, in a private letter, the present Secretary of State for War drew the attention of Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman to the deficiency of ammunition; but no steps were taken to bring the supply up to the requisite amount, and he brought the matter forward in Parliament, with the result that the Government of the day was defeated.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has altogether answered the Question that was put to him by my noble friend. The Question that my noble friend asked was—Whether it was not a fact that, owing to certain circumstances which probably were not the fault of the Government at all there was a great shortage of ammunition at the commencement of the war, and yet, owing, to the arrangements that had been made by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and his
468
advisers before leaving office, that shortage was able to be supplied without any difficulty whatever. It is very easy for noble Lords on the Bench opposite to deal with this matter in a light-hearted way. They have obtained all the fruits of the defeat of the Government in 1895, and we have had to bear the blame of what I believe was really only a misunderstanding. What was said on this subject at the time naturally rankled in the minds of those who were then responsible for the War Office—and I would remind the House that my noble friend Lord Monkswell was the Under Secretary of State for War—and, I think, in the minds of those who were then the military advisers of the War Office. By the irony of events, as it seems to me, it has been sufficiently proved that the arrangements sanctioned by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, and which were declared to be adequate by his military advisers, have turned out to be adequate. What was the policy of my right hon. friend in 1891–95? I would remind the House that at this period cordite was not a perfected powder. I can speak from my own personal experience. I used cordite in 1894–95 both for range and sporting purposes, and, so far as I could form an opinion, cordite was certainly inferior to other powders which I was able to use. I think the best proof of what I say is that even now there is a Committee sitting to inquire into this very question of cordite. My right hon. friend took the view that it was not desirable, until further experiments had been made, to have an over-large store in the national armouries, and I think that was a sound view to take. It was considered desirable to rely, not only on the Government manufacture of explosives, but also to encourage the establishment of other manufactories in different parts of the kingdom. At the time of which I am speaking great manufactories were being established in the north of Ireland and in Cornwall, with both of which the Government, entered into contracts, which, I believe, have since proved exceedingly satisfactory. The policy of my right hon. friend was to have a certain moderate amount of ammunition in reserve—I think the amount laid down as the standard was 100,000,000 rounds—but to rely largely

469
on the power of manufacture when the demand arose. Accordingly encouragement was given, as far as possible, to the establishment of these private manufactories.
The new Government on taking office, were, of course, obliged to increase the store of ammunition. Then came the most unfortunate part of the whole thing, the decision that Mark IV. ammunition was likely to produce the best results. Accordingly, the ammunition which the Government stored in the various arsenals throughout the world was principally Mark IV., but in the years 1898–99 Mark IV. was issued at Bisley and it was then discovered that the bullets did not give the best results. They were very apt to strip, and accidents happened which were attributed to the use of Mark IV. ammunition, which was also declared not to be altogether satisfactory for the purposes of accuracy in the use of the rifle. At the Hague Conference it was held that Mark IV. did not come within the recognised ammunition for civilised warfare. When the Government went to war they found themselves with great stores of Mark IV., which they wisely determined not to use and so avoid any possible charge of inhumanity. Therefore, at the beginning of the war this Mark IV. ammunition was useless for all practical purposes; and then it was that the Government fell back on the arrangements that had been made by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman. I think we have a right to ask from the noble Marquess some explanation of these matters.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What we say is that this is not the House to raise the question, which originated in the other House.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I maintain that this is the proper House in which to raise the question, because the Minister who was responsible at that time sits in your Lordships' House. I do not think there is any necessity to go into disputes between Parties in the House of Comnons. That is beside the question, and I do not wish to raise it. All that I desire is to get from the noble
470
Marquess a statement as to whether or not I have fairly stated the real facts of the case.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord who raised this question has strangely misapprehended the Parliamentary aspect of this question. He has told the House that he had raised it for the purpose of replying to the bitter and gratuitous attack which had been levelled at him and his friends. That attack certainly has not been made in this House. The noble Lord appeared very anxious to take up a challenge which he supposes to have been thrown down in another part of this building, and he attempted to meet it by the unusual Motion of which he gave notice before the Easter holidays. Let me first say this—that neither in nor out of this House has there been any attempt on our part to level a gratuitous attack on the noble Lord or on those associated with him. If there has been an attack, it has been of the kind which I believe is not unknown in warfare—offensive defence. The noble Lord's friends made a bitter and violent attack on public men with whom we are in the habit of acting, and in order to meet these attacks those who were the subject of them were compelled to carry the war into the enemy's country. His Majesty's Government have been frequently taken to task since the out break of the war for the alleged inadequacy of their preparations. These attacks are natural enough. We endeavour to meet them, but we do not resent them in the least. But what we take exception to is that charges of want of foresight and preparation should be made against us, and made with very great acrimony, by persons who were at one time themselves responsible for the military administration of the country, and who were very far from being better prepared for a great emergency than we were. I certainly believe that from every point of view they were in their time much less well prepared than we were when the war broke out in 1899. I observe a very important change in the amended Motion of the noble Lord. The noble Lord's original Motion dealt not only with the

471
question of cordite, but with the question of artillery—a very important question indeed. The noble Lord has shown great discretion in omitting that part of his indictment, probably for the reason that on further inquiry he found that the investigation of that particular count was not likely to result very favourably for him and his friends.
As to the complaint of the noble Lord, I understand it to be this—That whereas Lord Rosebery's Government was defeated on a question connected with cordite, the Government which followed it lived, so to speak, for four or five years on the proceeds of the foresight and preparations of Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman. I think those who followed the remarks of my noble friend will have seen how completely that assertion falls to the ground. It is perfectly true that before leaving office Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman had given very large orders for cordite to the trade. The cordite question is one thing, and the small arms ammunition question, on which Lord Rosebery's Government was turned out, is quite another. But of that large order for cordite given by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, only 200 tons was for land service; the rest was for the Admiralty. Let me say in passing that the 1,000 tons which fell to the lot of the Admiralty were very far indeed from tiding the Admiralty over the years 1894–99. During that period the Admiralty was obliged to order—in 1898—about 800 tons more cordite. The noble Lord found it, however, convenient to omit altogether from his argument and from his calculations the cordite supplied by the ordnance factories. Our great effort when we came into office was to increase the output of the ordnance factories.
LORD MONKSWELL: So was urs.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But you did not succeed.
LORD MONKSWELL: We intended to duplicate the nitro-glycerine factory.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, intended! From the ordnance factories during those periods to which the noble Lord's Motion has reference I
472
find we obtained 825 tons of cordite for land service—that is four times as much as the 200 tons of cordite included in Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's order. But that is not all. The noble Lord has talked about cordite and his Motion relates to cordite, but he knows perfectly well, and his speech showed it, that you cannot consider this question without taking into account not only orders of cordite, but orders of small arms ammunition? I find that between the years 1894 and 1899 we obtained from the ordnance factories no less than 228,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition—that is, about the equivalent of 450 tons of cordite—and that we also obtained from the trade 82,000,000 rounds or the equivalent of about 160 tons of cordite; so that, as my noble friend says, that much-vaunted order given to the trade by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, so far from sufficing for our wants during the years 1894 to 1899, had to be supplemented by other orders amounting to 1,400 and odd tons of cordite, either in the shape of cordite or in the shape of small arms ammunition, from other sources.
Now I come to the action of His Majesty's Government when it came into office in 1895. I will not repeat the figures which have been given to the House by my noble friend, but I am here to state in the most positive manner that when we took stock, we found ourselves face to face with a very large deficit in the amount of small arms ammunion which we should have had in order to provide the supply required by the then authorised scales. That deficit was a large one at the time we took office and threatened to become a much larger one at the end of the practising season, during which large quantities of ammunition are consumed by the troops. Then, says the noble Lord, why did not you make up that deficit by issuing very much larger orders than those which you actually ordered? He says, and I believe it is true, that the expenditure immediately authorised did not exceed £110,000. The answer to that is perfectly simple. We could not get the cordite, we could not get the ammunition; we could only order what there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining, and that amount

473
was not a very large one. Why? Because the outgoing Government had left things in such a condition that the producing power, both of the trade and of the factories, was of an extremely limited kind, and it would have been ridiculous if we had taken enormous sums of money, which we could not spend, and issued immense orders which we had no prospect of obtaining. But ever since that time we have been steadily and consistently building up our reserves and supplies of small arms ammunition. I give to the House this figure, which seems to me worth consideration. At the end of March, 1895, the reserve of small arms ammunition, including everything, stood at 90,500,000 rounds; at the same date in 1899—
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he would like a comparison with the year 1896.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Lord wanted this minute information about particular dates, he should have said so in his notice. In his notice he does not say a word about small arms ammunition. His notice refers to cordite, and yet he complains that we cannot tell him the exact number of rounds of small arms ammunition.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Marquess will find on referring to the Paper, that small arms ammunition is mentioned in the notice.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I am wrong. I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord the exact number of rounds at the intermediate dates. But I bear witness that we did steadily, while in office, continue to build up a large reserve of small arms ammunition, and in 1899 we had a reserve which was actually double the reserve held by the late Government in the spring of 1895. That was the case, in spite of the very large demands which were made upon us by the Egyptian campaign and by the increase of the number of rounds authorised for practice purposes. Both noble Lords asked me, I think with very great earnestness, whether there was a moment during our tenure of office when our reserve
474
fell below the reserve held by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman immediately before he left office. I should be very much surprised to find that it was so. My strong impression is that our reserves went on increasing. They fluctuated, no doubt, but I doubt whether at any moment the reserve fell to such a figure as that at which it stood when we took office in 1895.
The noble Lord pressed me very much on this point—whether in the reserve of ammunition for which we took credit, a considerable quantity of Mark IV. was included. Certainly it was. The noble Lord will remember that Mark IV. ammunition was found fault with for various reasons. It was quite obvious that we could not transform it by a stroke of the pen into ammunition of a different kind; but it would be altogether misleading the House to say that, because part of our reserve consisted of ammunition of this particular class, that ammunition was valueless for military purposes. One of the complaints of Mark IV. to which the noble Lord opposite adverted was that it was considered by the Hague Conference to be of a kind calculated to inflict needless injury and suffering upon the persons who might be wounded by it. We did not accept that view. We combated it. At the same time we desired very much that the ammunition used by the British Army should be of a kind to which no one could take exception upon grounds of humanity, and we, therefore, modified the pattern. But that complaint went to show, not that Mark IV. was useless or innocuous, but that it was too dangerous and too deadly in its effects upon those against whom it might be used.
There is another point to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord. He referred several times to the importance of securing sufficient sources of supply for ammunition. Now, we took great pains to develop those sources of supply, and I think it may interest your Lordships to know that, whereas in the year 1895–96 all the small arms ammunition that we could obtain from the trade was 1,500,000 rounds, we were able in the first six months of the war to obtain from the trade no less than 28,000,000 rounds. With regard to the ordnance factories, I find that, whereas in the year 1895–96 we

475
obtained from that source only 14,000,000 rounds, in the first half-year of the war we obtained no less than 42,000,000 rounds. That is to say, the trade and the factories at the beginning of the war were producing small arms ammunition at the rate of 140,000,000 rounds a year. I think that shows that we were not entirely unsuccessful in placing the supply of small arms ammunition upon a somewhat better footing than that on which we found it when we took office. My noble friend suggests that everything which was done after we took office ought to be credited to the meritorious schemes of our predecessors. He will forgive us if we do not quite admit that and if we take a little of the credit to ourselves. I confess that the whole of this discussion strikes me as being of a somewhat unreal description. We have been considering really whether Lord Rosebory's Government was turned out in 1895 owing to a mistake. I am afraid that, whatever may be the result of the noble Lord's researches, all the King's horses and all the King's men will not set Humpty-Dumpty up again. Therefore this discussion strikes me as being not a very useful one. What surely we have to consider is not so much the state of affairs in 1895, as whether at the present time our sources of supply are adequate, and whether there is anything which can be done—and I am sure noble Lords on both sides of the House will be glad to co-operate to that end—to make our military position in respect to small arms ammunition, artillery, and other such matters stronger and more satisfactory than it is at present.
LORD MONKSWELL: The important question on which the Liberal Government were turned out of office was the small arms ammunition question. At the same time I should be prepared to join issue with the noble Marquess in reference to artillery. In the time of the Liberal Government the Jameson Raid had not taken place, and the state of things was entirely different from that which had to be dealt with later. The noble Marquess, in referring to small arms ammunition, has urged that
476
the county was bound to be in a dangerous position for eight or nine months after the Liberals left office. Why then did not the Government to which he belonged strain every nerve to get the requisite amount of cordite? It is said that the matter was one of cartridges as well as cordite. The great complaint on which the Liberal Government was turned out, however, was deficiency of cordite. I would press for correspondence between the noble Marquess and the contractors who had promised to deliver 10,000,000 rounds in the course of the year and only delivered 1,500,000 rounds. If the noble Marquess wishes to make out that he had a larger supply at the beginning of the war than we had, he ought to tell the House the proportion of Mark IV. ammunition in stock at that time.
On Question, Motion negatived.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING-CLASSES.
Moved, That the Message of the House of Commons of the 18th of March last with respect to the Housing of the Working Classes be taken into consideration (The Lord Churchill); agreed to; the said Message considered accordingly-Then it was moved that a Committee of Seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee, as mentioned in the said Message; agreed to.
The Lords following were named of the Committee—

E. Camperdown.

E. Carrington.

V. Hampden.

L. Hatherton.

L. Wenlock.

L. Sandhurst.

L. Lamington.

Ordered, that such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons in answer to their said Message to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House, and to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room B on Friday the 2nd of May next at Three o'clock.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 42.)

PEER'S BANKRUPTCY ANNULLED.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received from the Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court of Justice a certificate under the Seal of the said Court, that on the 11th day of April 1902, the said Court made an order annulling the bankruptcy of the most noble William Angus Drogo, Duke of Manchester.
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.